![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think doing this would be good. Amatoxins is a group. Alpha-amanitin is a member of the amatoxins, not to mention the most lethal of them. merging this would be pointless and wouldnt make sense because amatoxins is a group while alpha-amanitin is a specific toxin. -- Neur0X . talk 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello folks, is there a difference (besides spelling) between amatoxin and amanitoxin? I ask so we can know what spelling to use in further article(s) and where to set any redirects. Thebestofall007 ( talk) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a few parts that I find confusing here. The "Symptoms of exposure" section states both that amatoxins cannot be absorbed through the skin and that beta-amanitin can be absorbed through the skin. And concerning the mode of action as well, it's hard to tell from the article if all amatoxins inhibit RNA pol II, which is what it seems to state under Mechanism, but then under Physiological mode of action it seems to go into other (unrelated, or if related, how??) effects.. Some clarification would be nice here I think. Momordiq ( talk) 21:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
While I cannot site a specific source I would deem credible, I have read elsewhere that absorption through the skin is not possible alone... but has an increased liklihood if using alcohol (possibly other chemicals as well) for sanititation and alcohol can be absorbed through the skin. Hopefully this clarification will help someone better versed than myself to make an appropriate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:4391:E115:67E7:1BB7:A60A ( talk) 03:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It says that Amatoxin is not denatured by heat but that is wrong because EVERY chemical compound is ultimately denatured by heat. Some just take much higher temperatures than others. That is unless it is to suggest Amatoxin would be stable at temperatures like those in the core of the sun then it is flat out incorrect to say heat cannot destroy it. Xanikk999 ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I edited the article to clarify this. Xanikk999 ( talk) 20:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The Treatment section lists silybin in "Treatments showing no discernable value", but in the next paragraph says " Silibinin, a product found in milk thistle, is a potential antidote to amatoxin poisoning, although more data needs to be collected." The links show that silybin and silibinin are alternative names for the same thing, so this is a contradiction. Tslumley ( talk) 06:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ KaiserTadd I have summarised the issues here so we can address them and work on improving the article rather than going back and forward editing.
This study, however, based this claim on data from a single patient case, and the authors acknowledge a degree of uncertainty about this hypothetical conclusion, noting that "the lethal dosage for humans probably depends on the health of the patient, his or her susceptibility or predisposition to liver injury, and ecotypic variation in the concentration of amatoxins in various locales. Our clinical and laboratory results showed that the amount taken by the patient remained below the hypothetical lethal dose. In our present study, the lethal dose was determined according to the data obtained from one patient, but these data are important for further investigations. Similar studies that include a greater number of patients may provide additional evidence for the quantification of potentially lethal doses of amatoxin"
Wikipedia is for summarising information from papers and reliable sources or presenting data from them. Quoting entire paragraphs should be avoided and in some cases may infringe upon copyrights. I've summarised this information and added it to the page as it is good to contextualise the study. Ideally it would be good to find some more case reports to add along with this one as more information will create a better picture. Let me know if you need help finding sources.
Every part of a mushrooming body in species that contain amatoxins has the toxin, and the amounts of these toxins in each of the respective parts, including the pilleus, volva, stipe, gills, and spores, are considerable.
'Considerable' doesn't really mean anything in this context when the concentrations are already presented. It is also too broad of a statement to apply it to every species that contains amatoxins. Some contain them in small concentrations and the different parts including spores have not been tested for many species it seems.
One study that examined Amanita phalloides var. alba showed that all parts of the mushrooming body contained the amatoxins alpha-amanitin, beta-amanitin, and gamma-amanitin and that the levels of these different compounds could vary somewhat in the pileus, gills, stipe, and volva.
This has already been summarised so doesn't need to be repeated in full but we can clarify this by changing the opening to 'In a 2013 study on the toxin concentration in
Amanita phalloides all parts of the mushroom were found to contain amatoxins with the highest concentrations present in the gills and cap and the lowest levels in the spores and mycelium.'
There is some question as to the concentration of amatoxins in the fungal spores of such mushrooms. Although one laboratory analysis examined the relative amount of toxins in the different parts of mushrooms containing amatoxin and reported that the spores contain as little as 3% of the concentration of toxin of the main mushroom body
[1], such a result may be misleading, as the quantities of alpha-amanitin in spores were reported by another similar study to be as high as 0.89mg/g
[2], which is merely half of the concentration reported in the components with the highest. This discrepancy casts great doubt on the reliability of either result.
The paper cited doesn't give a figure of 3% and it's unclear why that information was on the wikipedia page to start with. Not sure if someone did the maths on it themselves based on the figures given but probably best to avoid including that I think. The result isn't misleading though - one paper you have cited is for Amanita phalloides and the other is for Amanita phalloides var. alba, the latter of which remarks on the difference between them and even calls it 'remarkable'.
In one study, which reported the significantly higher concentrations, the results were derived using only the spore prints from just six moderately sized mushrooms to determine the concentrations in each part, and so the authors had examined a miniscule mass of spores that may not have yielded such quantities of toxin so as to be reliably measurable with the methods used
[3]. The authors then had to grossly extrapolate the data to infer results about a much larger sample than they had available to analyze
[4].
This is not an appropriate tone for wikipedia. We can include the details of how the spores were collected and the number of specimens used to contextualise the data but should avoid saying things like 'the authors then had to grossly extrapolate'. If you disagree with a study you should find other sources that disagree with it and cite those rather than injection personal criticism or conjecture.
The quantites of toxins measured in the separate components were not directly reported in this study, either; instead, they are referred to as merely as concentrations, which were calculated (in mg/g), an average relative to "one gram of dried mushroom"
[5]. This confusion of "quantity" for "concentration" evidences further uncertainty as to the actual quantities that were measured, particularly in the spores, since the researchers did not use such a considerable sample size to obtain their data as they did with the other components
[6]. Neither were the spores explictly mentioned to be among the parts of the mushrooms they analyzed
[7] and so this aspect of the study is both poorly defined and weakly unsupported.
I think you have misunderstood the papers. When they say the quantities are given as a mean of 1g dried material in each sample they are saying that multiple 1g samples were tested and the concentrations that are presented are the average across these samples. It doesn't mean that the concentrations in the spores were somehow averaged against the 1g dry specimen. The materials and method section in the Amanita phalloides paper describes the process: spores prints were taken, the whole mushrooms were cut in half down the middle, weighed and dried. One half of the mushroom was used to calculate the total toxin volume in the dried mushroom with the concentration in the fresh mushroom being calculated based on the water loss, which was calculated based on the weight before and after drying. The other half of the mushroom was divided into cap, gill, stipe and volva sections which were ground individually. 1 gram was added to 15ml of the extraction medium. Hence, multiple 1 gram tests with the figure presented being the average for each part of the mushroom. The +/- could be included in the table but the variation seemed negligible enough for that one not to clutter it unnecessarily. It is common to use mg/g as a unit for measuring the concentration of toxins as it enables you to say how much toxin is found per gram of the substance. If they were to say 'we found 5mg' without specifying in what volume of material then that would not be as useful. As we know the weight of each sample was 1 gram though we do know how much of each toxin was found. That it gives a concentration in the spores shows the spores were tested. We can presume that they probably did not collect 1 gram of spores per sample however and did scale up the figures but this does not render them meaningless and does not mean they are averaged against the rest of the mushroom in any way. Were you to collect a full gram of spores to test for each sample perhaps you could say the figures would be more accurate given the larger sample size but this would also be a very time consuming and unnecessary way of testing them.
Given that far greater quantites of fungal spores are continously emitted in sporing bodies than may be collected in single spore prints, and the extreme toxicity of amatoxin in humans, the concern for toxicity resulting from spores is a matter of concern and warrants further clarification and research. Considering the extreme toxicity of amatoxin in humans
[8], there is a need for such work.
Yes mushrooms emit more spores than you will get with a quick spore print but this does not change the concentration in the spores or the relevance of the data. Statements like 'there is a need for such work.' are also best avoided on wikipedia unless saying that is in some way relevant to a source you cite. Perhaps a more useful thing would be to find some more papers that estimate the amount of spores produced by these mushrooms in order to contextualise the toxicity level of the spores and determine how practical it would be to actually consume a dangerous level of them.
Functionally speaking, the structures reported to contain the highest concentrations by such studies, the gills, are the same ones directly involved in the formation and release of spores. Moreover, such studies examined dried specimens only, extrapolating the data to predict the quantities in wet ones, while these dry concentrations have differed still across similar studies
[9]. Indeed, the only conclusion reached by the authors in one such study that looked to analyze these different parts was broadly that "eating such mushrooms" would be fatal
Again the reason for the difference in the other study is that they are testing a different variant of the mushroom. Both papers include many of the same authors and their methodology is the same so these are not in conflict but simply presenting data on a different mushroom variant. The gill sample would have included the spores though yes as some always remain on the gills but this does not mean the test of the gills and the spores are interchangeable. The fact that the gills were higher is because the gill sample included gill flesh and Amanita gills can be quite densely packed and fleshy so the bulk of the sample would still have been the gill tissue.
MycoMutant ( talk) 22:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think doing this would be good. Amatoxins is a group. Alpha-amanitin is a member of the amatoxins, not to mention the most lethal of them. merging this would be pointless and wouldnt make sense because amatoxins is a group while alpha-amanitin is a specific toxin. -- Neur0X . talk 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello folks, is there a difference (besides spelling) between amatoxin and amanitoxin? I ask so we can know what spelling to use in further article(s) and where to set any redirects. Thebestofall007 ( talk) 22:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There are a few parts that I find confusing here. The "Symptoms of exposure" section states both that amatoxins cannot be absorbed through the skin and that beta-amanitin can be absorbed through the skin. And concerning the mode of action as well, it's hard to tell from the article if all amatoxins inhibit RNA pol II, which is what it seems to state under Mechanism, but then under Physiological mode of action it seems to go into other (unrelated, or if related, how??) effects.. Some clarification would be nice here I think. Momordiq ( talk) 21:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
While I cannot site a specific source I would deem credible, I have read elsewhere that absorption through the skin is not possible alone... but has an increased liklihood if using alcohol (possibly other chemicals as well) for sanititation and alcohol can be absorbed through the skin. Hopefully this clarification will help someone better versed than myself to make an appropriate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:4391:E115:67E7:1BB7:A60A ( talk) 03:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It says that Amatoxin is not denatured by heat but that is wrong because EVERY chemical compound is ultimately denatured by heat. Some just take much higher temperatures than others. That is unless it is to suggest Amatoxin would be stable at temperatures like those in the core of the sun then it is flat out incorrect to say heat cannot destroy it. Xanikk999 ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I edited the article to clarify this. Xanikk999 ( talk) 20:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The Treatment section lists silybin in "Treatments showing no discernable value", but in the next paragraph says " Silibinin, a product found in milk thistle, is a potential antidote to amatoxin poisoning, although more data needs to be collected." The links show that silybin and silibinin are alternative names for the same thing, so this is a contradiction. Tslumley ( talk) 06:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@ KaiserTadd I have summarised the issues here so we can address them and work on improving the article rather than going back and forward editing.
This study, however, based this claim on data from a single patient case, and the authors acknowledge a degree of uncertainty about this hypothetical conclusion, noting that "the lethal dosage for humans probably depends on the health of the patient, his or her susceptibility or predisposition to liver injury, and ecotypic variation in the concentration of amatoxins in various locales. Our clinical and laboratory results showed that the amount taken by the patient remained below the hypothetical lethal dose. In our present study, the lethal dose was determined according to the data obtained from one patient, but these data are important for further investigations. Similar studies that include a greater number of patients may provide additional evidence for the quantification of potentially lethal doses of amatoxin"
Wikipedia is for summarising information from papers and reliable sources or presenting data from them. Quoting entire paragraphs should be avoided and in some cases may infringe upon copyrights. I've summarised this information and added it to the page as it is good to contextualise the study. Ideally it would be good to find some more case reports to add along with this one as more information will create a better picture. Let me know if you need help finding sources.
Every part of a mushrooming body in species that contain amatoxins has the toxin, and the amounts of these toxins in each of the respective parts, including the pilleus, volva, stipe, gills, and spores, are considerable.
'Considerable' doesn't really mean anything in this context when the concentrations are already presented. It is also too broad of a statement to apply it to every species that contains amatoxins. Some contain them in small concentrations and the different parts including spores have not been tested for many species it seems.
One study that examined Amanita phalloides var. alba showed that all parts of the mushrooming body contained the amatoxins alpha-amanitin, beta-amanitin, and gamma-amanitin and that the levels of these different compounds could vary somewhat in the pileus, gills, stipe, and volva.
This has already been summarised so doesn't need to be repeated in full but we can clarify this by changing the opening to 'In a 2013 study on the toxin concentration in
Amanita phalloides all parts of the mushroom were found to contain amatoxins with the highest concentrations present in the gills and cap and the lowest levels in the spores and mycelium.'
There is some question as to the concentration of amatoxins in the fungal spores of such mushrooms. Although one laboratory analysis examined the relative amount of toxins in the different parts of mushrooms containing amatoxin and reported that the spores contain as little as 3% of the concentration of toxin of the main mushroom body
[1], such a result may be misleading, as the quantities of alpha-amanitin in spores were reported by another similar study to be as high as 0.89mg/g
[2], which is merely half of the concentration reported in the components with the highest. This discrepancy casts great doubt on the reliability of either result.
The paper cited doesn't give a figure of 3% and it's unclear why that information was on the wikipedia page to start with. Not sure if someone did the maths on it themselves based on the figures given but probably best to avoid including that I think. The result isn't misleading though - one paper you have cited is for Amanita phalloides and the other is for Amanita phalloides var. alba, the latter of which remarks on the difference between them and even calls it 'remarkable'.
In one study, which reported the significantly higher concentrations, the results were derived using only the spore prints from just six moderately sized mushrooms to determine the concentrations in each part, and so the authors had examined a miniscule mass of spores that may not have yielded such quantities of toxin so as to be reliably measurable with the methods used
[3]. The authors then had to grossly extrapolate the data to infer results about a much larger sample than they had available to analyze
[4].
This is not an appropriate tone for wikipedia. We can include the details of how the spores were collected and the number of specimens used to contextualise the data but should avoid saying things like 'the authors then had to grossly extrapolate'. If you disagree with a study you should find other sources that disagree with it and cite those rather than injection personal criticism or conjecture.
The quantites of toxins measured in the separate components were not directly reported in this study, either; instead, they are referred to as merely as concentrations, which were calculated (in mg/g), an average relative to "one gram of dried mushroom"
[5]. This confusion of "quantity" for "concentration" evidences further uncertainty as to the actual quantities that were measured, particularly in the spores, since the researchers did not use such a considerable sample size to obtain their data as they did with the other components
[6]. Neither were the spores explictly mentioned to be among the parts of the mushrooms they analyzed
[7] and so this aspect of the study is both poorly defined and weakly unsupported.
I think you have misunderstood the papers. When they say the quantities are given as a mean of 1g dried material in each sample they are saying that multiple 1g samples were tested and the concentrations that are presented are the average across these samples. It doesn't mean that the concentrations in the spores were somehow averaged against the 1g dry specimen. The materials and method section in the Amanita phalloides paper describes the process: spores prints were taken, the whole mushrooms were cut in half down the middle, weighed and dried. One half of the mushroom was used to calculate the total toxin volume in the dried mushroom with the concentration in the fresh mushroom being calculated based on the water loss, which was calculated based on the weight before and after drying. The other half of the mushroom was divided into cap, gill, stipe and volva sections which were ground individually. 1 gram was added to 15ml of the extraction medium. Hence, multiple 1 gram tests with the figure presented being the average for each part of the mushroom. The +/- could be included in the table but the variation seemed negligible enough for that one not to clutter it unnecessarily. It is common to use mg/g as a unit for measuring the concentration of toxins as it enables you to say how much toxin is found per gram of the substance. If they were to say 'we found 5mg' without specifying in what volume of material then that would not be as useful. As we know the weight of each sample was 1 gram though we do know how much of each toxin was found. That it gives a concentration in the spores shows the spores were tested. We can presume that they probably did not collect 1 gram of spores per sample however and did scale up the figures but this does not render them meaningless and does not mean they are averaged against the rest of the mushroom in any way. Were you to collect a full gram of spores to test for each sample perhaps you could say the figures would be more accurate given the larger sample size but this would also be a very time consuming and unnecessary way of testing them.
Given that far greater quantites of fungal spores are continously emitted in sporing bodies than may be collected in single spore prints, and the extreme toxicity of amatoxin in humans, the concern for toxicity resulting from spores is a matter of concern and warrants further clarification and research. Considering the extreme toxicity of amatoxin in humans
[8], there is a need for such work.
Yes mushrooms emit more spores than you will get with a quick spore print but this does not change the concentration in the spores or the relevance of the data. Statements like 'there is a need for such work.' are also best avoided on wikipedia unless saying that is in some way relevant to a source you cite. Perhaps a more useful thing would be to find some more papers that estimate the amount of spores produced by these mushrooms in order to contextualise the toxicity level of the spores and determine how practical it would be to actually consume a dangerous level of them.
Functionally speaking, the structures reported to contain the highest concentrations by such studies, the gills, are the same ones directly involved in the formation and release of spores. Moreover, such studies examined dried specimens only, extrapolating the data to predict the quantities in wet ones, while these dry concentrations have differed still across similar studies
[9]. Indeed, the only conclusion reached by the authors in one such study that looked to analyze these different parts was broadly that "eating such mushrooms" would be fatal
Again the reason for the difference in the other study is that they are testing a different variant of the mushroom. Both papers include many of the same authors and their methodology is the same so these are not in conflict but simply presenting data on a different mushroom variant. The gill sample would have included the spores though yes as some always remain on the gills but this does not mean the test of the gills and the spores are interchangeable. The fact that the gills were higher is because the gill sample included gill flesh and Amanita gills can be quite densely packed and fleshy so the bulk of the sample would still have been the gill tissue.
MycoMutant ( talk) 22:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)