Talk:Cordyceps

Untitled

Fig. 4. Effect of cordycepin on LPS-induced COX-2 protein expression, and TNF-α mRNA expression. (A) RAW 264.7 cells (4×106 cells/well) were pretreated with the indicated concentrations of cordycepin for 30 min before incubation with LPS (1 μg/ml) for 16 h. The cells were lysed, and the lysates were analyzed by immunoblotting used anti-COX-2. The blot was stripped of the bound antibody and reprobed with anti-β actin to confirm equal loading. (B) Raw cells were pretreated with cordycepin for 30 min and then treated with LPS in the presence of cordycepin for 8 h. Total RNAwas isolated and used for TNF- α or actin RT-PCR. Total RNA was prepared and RT-PCR analysis was performed as described in Materials and methods.

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

merge?

The merge tag was added to this, but no discussion was started here. I'd say that the two in their present form shouldn't be merged. Having an article on Cordyceps that is 3/4 on caterpillar fungus seems to be undesirable to me.--Keithonearth (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I took off the merge request tag, it's been on since 2008-10-02, and has had no positive responses. There are 400 known species of Cordyceps, to merge the entire caterpillar fungus article into it would give caterpillar fungus way to much emphasis on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithonearth (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Too technical

This should be rewritten as to be more accessible to the common people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.34.186 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I'll see if I can do a little clarification. I think in most cases that's well handled by making sure unclear terms are properly wikilinked, but I'm sure some things can be tightened up. Please don't hesitate to clear up anything you think unclear yourself. In the meantime, to encourage further editing input (and also to remind myself a bit) I'll stick up a template for it on the article. - Vianello (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

it does not seem too technical to me. Unless someone objects, I am going to wait seven days and then remove the tag. Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing tag now. Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source for medicine

This was published today. Smartse (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

This article is not updated with current taxonomical nomenclature. For example, Cordyceps species are now divided into several genera and three different families and are therefore not all members of the Clavicipitaceae (as is currently posted). Also, Cordyceps sinensis has been renamed Ophiocordyceps sinensis. These are just a couple of examples. See Sung, G-H, Hywel-Jones NL, Sung J-M, Luangsa-ard J, Shrestha B, Spatafora JW. 2007. Phylogenetic classification of Cordyceps and the clavicipitaceous fungi, Studies in Mycology 57. Bluelicorice (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is written as though it's an advert for alternative medicine. I'm pretty sure if eating parasitic fungii cured cancer, and had done for 'thousands of years' that we'd be using that now. Further, there's no sign of medical efficacy of ANY medicinal benefits of cordycep consumption or use; this needs to be clearly reflected in the article. I'm all for letting crackpots express their tin foil hat points of view about alternative medicine, but if it doesn't have any scientific backing, that should be stressed heavily in the article to avoid idiots taking it as gospel that it REALLY CURES CANCER OMG. :/ 114.76.167.183 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I toned down some of the claims, removed some of the uncited claims, and introduced some referenced content about the lack of clinical trials showing benefits to human health. Perhaps another editor with an eye for WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE can look over the text, but I think it is balanced enough now that I have removed the NPOV tag. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft

As per the edit summary I left, I removed the reference to Minecraft. It's "source" was a Minecraft user-wiki. Even on said wiki, it is not directly claimed that the Mooshrooms are infected with Cordyceps, it is simply suggested that they bear a resemblance to a Cordyceps infected creature. In the absence of some statement from the game's creators and given the extremely flimsy source material the statement that these game creatures are infected by Cordyceps is pure speculation and shouldn't be in the article. 217.44.139.248 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

There is a recurring theme in horror-fiction circles in which a mutated strain can infect humans as well, often triggering an epidemic of apocalyptic magnitudes. Whether it is through online roleplay, a series of short stories by a virtually unknown author, or a well-established video game franchise, the notion of this fungus parasitizing humankind seems too notable to be left ignored. Any thoughts? 47.136.62.201 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There used to be a section on that, but it was removed for being "unsourced trivia". I'm not sure I would call the occurrences too notable though. Your first two sources are forums, which are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Aside from that, TLoU seems to be the only other significant media where I've heard of them (unless you can find instances of them in literature or something) The issue with popular culture sections is that they often get bogged with every minor appearance, whereas an encyclopedia is meant to summarize major aspects of a topic. An entry would need to demonstrate the lasting cultural impact of the appearance with a third-party source discussing it. Based on that, I think using the source mentioned for TLoU would be fine and worthy of mention, but any other instances would need to meet the aforementioned criteria. (which is why editors usually avoid creating sections just for popular culture items in general) Opencooper (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you for clearing it up. I wasn't very sure but still felt the urge to mention. Pop-culture references can be quick to kill an article's tone if done improperly, rendering it to a fanpage almost. Other than TLoU, there doesn't seem to be anything else on the matter, so it may not be as common as I initially thought. Indeed, it might be best to leave such a section out until more of the theme's usage can come along. 47.136.62.201 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Stop

As specified in the lead, "Cordyceps sinensis" is no longer a valid species name; the fungus formerly known as such is now called Ophiocordyceps sinensis and places in a different family. I am aware that that removes pretty much all of the fun facts about this genus, along with the majority of valid references. Unfortunately, science has spoken, and life must go on. Talking about O. sinensis in this article beyond saying that it doesn't belong to the genus is like discussing whale meat in an article about tuna. Just save it for the right article. complainer (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I added one sentence so that people looking for information on the dietary supplement ingredient "cordyceps" are directed to the article Ophiocordyceps sinensis. Yes, is should have been obvious, but some people need more breadcrumbs. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Last of Us information

I see that The Last of Us and other fictional appearances of Cordyceps was discussed in March of last year but there's no current information regarding this. I tried adding a brief mention but got reverted. As long as The Last of Us and the fungal, zombifying infection is clearly defined as fictional, this seems appropriate to mention since it's a pop culture phenomenon (they're releasing a sequel next year). Being that I'm no expert in this field though, I am glad to defer. Any thoughts? PcPrincipal (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging some of the more recent editors just because I'm curious why this information is completely irrelevant for the page? I'm happy to be proven wrong, just seems to me like a brief mention of The Last of Us wouldn't be out of place. ​​​​​ PcPrincipal (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with "In popular culture" sections, but not every editor is. (I recently had a similar edit reverted.) I'm not certain what course of action to suggest, though I'll add that the manga The Kurosagi Corpse Delivery Service has another example of Cordyceps "zombification", in volume 4. Edit: Oops—according to TV Tropes that was Leucochloridium paradoxum.

If you can't convince the editor(s) in question, there's always TV Tropes' "Parasite Zombie" article. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

For me, the issue is clear: there are hundreds (at a conservative estimate) of endoparasitoid fungi; if The Last of Us explicitly mentions the genus Cordyceps, then it belongs. If it's just an idle association between this type of fungus and the fictional one in LoU, then it most definitely doesn't. complainer 12:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Complainer, thanks, that's actually helpful. To be honest, I'm not sure if the fungus is explicitly mentioned in the game, but I'll do some research to see what I can find. And thanks everyone else too! PcPrincipal (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Per what Complainer said, I went ahead and restored the Last of Us information using a source that indicates an in-game mention of the infection (called Cordyceps Brain Infection in the story). PcPrincipal (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation contradicts statement.

A contributer writes: "...there is no scientific evidence that their use has any clinical effect on human diseases.[8]" That very citation flatly contradicts the contributer's opinion- "Cancer: Numerous in vitro and animal experiments have been conducted on aqueous and ethanol extracts of cordyceps, as well as with cordycepin and oxypiperazines extracted from the mycelium. The extracts enhanced cytokine activity and induced cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, thereby reducing tumor cell proliferation and enhancing survival times.4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Limited clinical studies report subjective improvement of symptoms, increased tolerance of radiation and chemotherapy (possibly caused by enhanced immune function), and reduction in tumor size with coadministration of cordyceps.3, 4 Animal experiments suggest a protective role for cordyceps in radiation- and chemotherapy-induced injury, with increased survival times demonstrated in mice.21, 22" 77Mike77 (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Human diseases: there is no scientific evidence of a clinical effect, i.e., use by physicians or approval as a prescription drug by a regulatory agency. Traditional medicine is unscientific and not supported by WP:MEDRS sources. Animal and in vitro studies are primary research, too preliminary to mention. The statement in the article is correct. Zefr (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading content about "health benefits"

This revert was justified because there are no WP:MEDRS sources to support any statement about cordyceps benefiting human health. 1) There are no good sources to support any health effect of mushroom polysaccharides, and there are no polysaccharides approved as prescription drugs; this is not a MEDRS source, but is rather a review of primary research with no confirmation or general scientific agreement in clinical publications; see WP:MEDSCI. 2) Publications in sports journals or from lab animal research are primary studies too preliminary for the encyclopedia, and are not MEDRS-compliant. The proposed edit is carelessly written, does not improve the article, and is too misleading for any part of it to be included. The current version in the article on uses is adequately stated and sourced. Zefr (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)