Talk:Lingzhi (mushroom)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Verifiability

This article's final section opens with the sentence: "Numerous studies of lingzhi, mainly in China, Korea, Japan and the United States, has shown its effectiveness in the treatment of a very wide range of diseases and symptoms." Not one of those studies is cited, and I found no such studies in Google and no mentions of lingzhi (or reishi or ganoderma) on major medical sites. This section should either be sourced or excised. | Keithlaw 18:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

-Try PubMed. There's plenty of concrete, peer-reviewed research - whether it substantiates the herbalists' claims, I'm not qualified to say. Here's 10 hits from PubMed:

Woo CW, Man RY, Siow YL, Choy PC, Wan EW, Lau CS, Karmin O. Related Articles, Links Abstract Ganoderma lucidum inhibits inducible nitric oxide synthase expression in macrophages. Mol Cell Biochem. 2005 Jul;275(1-2):165-71.

2: Nonaka Y, Ishibashi H, Nakai M, Shibata H, Kiso Y, Abe S. Related Articles, Links Abstract [Soothing effect of Ganoderma lucidum antlered form on cyclophosphamide-induced adverse reaction] Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2005 Oct;32(11):1586-8. Japanese.

3: Wang CZ, Basila D, Aung HH, Mehendale SR, Chang WT, McEntee E, Guan X, Yuan CS. Related Articles, Links Abstract Effects of ganoderma lucidum extract on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a rat model. Am J Chin Med. 2005;33(5):807-15.

4: [No authors listed] Related Articles, Links No abstract [Luminous quack doctor] Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 2005 Sep 21;94(38):1497. German. No abstract available.

5: Hijikata Y, Yasuhara A, Sahashi Y. Related Articles, Links Abstract Effect of an herbal formula containing Ganoderma lucidum on reduction of herpes zoster pain: a pilot clinical trial. Am J Chin Med. 2005;33(4):517-23. PMID: 16173526 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 6: Gao Y, Tang W, Dai X, Gao H, Chen G, Ye J, Chan E, Koh HL, Li X, Zhou S. Related Articles, Links Abstract Effects of water-soluble Ganoderma lucidum polysaccharides on the immune functions of patients with advanced lung cancer. J Med Food. 2005 Summer;8(2):159-68. PMID: 16117607 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 7: Yang HL, Chen GH, Li YQ. Related Articles, Links Abstract A quantum chemical and statistical study of ganoderic acids with cytotoxicity against tumor cell. Eur J Med Chem. 2005 Oct;40(10):972-6. Epub 2005 Jul 11.

8: Gao Y, Gao H, Chan E, Tang W, Xu A, Yang H, Huang M, Lan J, Li X, Duan W, Xu C, Zhou S. Related Articles, Links Abstract Antitumor activity and underlying mechanisms of ganopoly, the refined polysaccharides extracted from Ganoderma lucidum, in mice. Immunol Invest. 2005;34(2):171-98.

9: Lin YL, Liang YC, Lee SS, Chiang BL. Related Articles, Links Abstract Polysaccharide purified from Ganoderma lucidum induced activation and maturation of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells by the NF-kappaB and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways. J Leukoc Biol. 2005 Aug;78(2):533-43. Epub 2005 May 13.

10: Tang W, Gao Y, Chen G, Gao H, Dai X, Ye J, Chan E, Huang M, Zhou S. Related Articles, Links Abstract A randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of a Ganoderma lucidum polysaccharide extract in neurasthenia. J Med Food. 2005 Spring;8(1):53-8.

129.128.166.158 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have referenced those and other statements and removed the verification notice. Karen S Vaughan 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific studies typically use the scientific (sic) name, Ganoderma Lucidum, rather than the Romanized Japanese or Chinese names Reishi or Lingzhi. There are other closely related species in the Ganoderma family, and the scientific nomenclature is the only consistent and complete way to name and distinguish all of the known species. English does not have a word for Reishi, and Chinese does not have a word for the Oregon polypore. --Turpin (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The preparations section is not properly cited and doesn't seem accurate. They were somewhat biased and did not give other procedures for extraction of the medicinal constituents. Include information on tinctures along with other proposed timings for extraction and temperatures should be given. Section is vague.

In the sections Japanese names, Korean names, and vietnamese names there are no citations. This needs to be investigated because the names given within these sections are unfamiliar.Apoe0724 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern scientific studies

Definately POV - the section takes an opportunity to defend 'traditional oriental wisdom' from Western conceptions of medicine. That sort of talk should be elsewhere. The bottom line is, many of the traditionally-ascribed properties have not yet been corroborated by science (which is not traditional oriental wisdom, but is the title of the section). I would, at minimum, excise a whole paragraph. 129.128.166.158 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph currently (May 11, 2009) reads as: Scientific studies of lingzhi, mainly in China,[35][36] Korea,[37] Japan[38] and the United States, have been conducted to a limited extent, mostly in cell culture and rodents.[39] The studies have not given any explanation of lingzhi's purported diverse effects, because none of the known active components taken alone have produced results comparable to the anecdotal reports surrounding intake of lingzhi itself, raising the question of whether synergy is important or if the testimonial evidence is faulty. For example, reports of lingzhi's effect on stamina, appetite, and other human conditions are largely anecdotal and haven't been studied scientifically. In the absence of scientific validation, lingzhi's "miraculous powers" are most credible from the traditional Chinese medicine point of view.

I Turpin have several issues with this first paragraph. The sentence fragment, "... to a limited extent, mostly in cell culture and rodents", is contradicted by other sources such as where in vitro studies on human beings are discussed.
The sentence, "The studies have not given any explanation of lingzhi's purported diverse effects, because none of the known active components taken alone have produced results comparable to the anecdotal reports surrounding intake of lingzhi itself, raising the question of whether synergy is important or if the testimonial evidence is faulty," seems to imply that active components taken alone have been studied extensively, without providing any reference to such studies. As far as I know, there are far more in vitro studies on whole extract than on high-purity, one-component extract. Furthermore, lack of effectiveness of single-component formulas does not mean lack of explanation. Many of the compounds in Lingzhi are either known or believed to have specific phramacological properties, and although synergy of multiple compounds may be a significant factor, that is not the same as a lack of explanation.
The sentences, 'For example, reports of lingzhi's effect on stamina, appetite, and other human conditions are largely anecdotal and haven't been studied scientifically. In the absence of scientific validation, lingzhi's "miraculous powers" are most credible from the traditional Chinese medicine point of view,' are also problematic, because lack of verification resulting from lack of study is not the same as lack of credibility. The anti-allergic and diabetes resistance properties that have been verified are already one possible explanation, and no study has ruled out additional mechanisms for increased stamina. The fact that western science has concentrated on diease-fighting rather than wellness-supporting may have more to do with funding considerations by particular researchers than with credibility. Perhaps some sports medicine researchers ought to study Lingzhi, but lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. - Turpin

I Turpin am considering how best to revise this. Comments are appreciated. -Turpin

The section in question indeed needs an overhaul. There's a lot of OR in there that needs to be removed or else verified with proper references. Bear in mind though that although several studies support positive effects of Lingzhi on human health, many of them have been published in rather obscure journals. Evidence-based studies published in journals with more exacting standards (eg, J Natural Products and other ACS journals) are beginning to emerge that report results from controlled experiments testing isolated Lingzhi compounds such as ganoderic acids and lucidenic acid, on human or other mammalian cell lines, which suggest some activity of these compounds against cancer or other malignancies. Despite this, we're still way off from a comprehensive overview of the effects of this fungus on human health, and it doesn't help that it has a lot of mystique attached to it that clouds rather than clarifies what its active principles are. I have the entry on my watch list, and will chip in/comment as needed. Malljaja (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems was, even the sentence that is supported by a reference is outdated information. So I've modified the intro paragraph for modern scientific studies to give it more of a tentative rather than definitive reading. --Turpin (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

References:

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

Material from the Ganoderma article

The article on Ganoderma was all about Lingzhi, even though Ganoderma is a genus with multiple species.

Some of the information is not in this article, so I am pasting it here so it will not be lost. Feel free to take this text and put it into this article where appropriate.

For over 2000 years, Reishi Mushrooms (Ganoderma lucidum) have been considered by the Chinese to be a high quality herbal medicine. In the traditional Chinese medical theory, Reishi or Lingzhi is among the highest ranking. It can improve overall health, increase the body's healing ability, promote longevity and it does not bring along any side effects even taken a long period of time. According to Dr. ShiJean Lee, the most famous Chinese Medical Doctor of the Ming Dynasty, long term consumption of Reishi will build a strong, healthy body and assure a long life. Modern medical research also proves that Reishi has a wide range of medical effects.

Its main function is to promote blood circulation and increase the metabolic activities of cells (detoxification) and also help the proper functioning of all internal organs (balance the body functions).

Lingzhi can be taken daily, for long periods, with out any adverse side effects. Long term use of lingzhi can help normalize body function and empower the immune system to fight disease. It is not merely a medicinal mushroom that heals a particular disease, but is considered to be an adaptogen, that is it helps to regulate and mobilize all bodily functions.

To achieve the highest ranking, a herbal medicine must satisfy the following conditions: It should be non toxic( have no side effects), Its effects should not be limited to a specific part, or organ of the body, - It should be able to normalize all of the body's functions.

The article referred to Ganoderma lucidum and Ganoderma tsugae as both growing in Eastern Hemlock forests, insinuating that both species grow on Hemlocks, but this is not entirely true because for Ganoderma lucidum only grows on hardwood trees and G. tsugae grows strictly on Hemlocks which is a soft wood conifer.

Biochemistry section is very vague and just indicates the common name given to proteins, triterpenes, sterols, and polysaccharides that are active within the fungi but there is no indication of why it is worth noting. Many organisms contain these different types of biomolecules but if they show no significance or if none is said then don't talk about it. Might want to note what some of these biomolecues can do.Apoe0724 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To-do List for FA status

Bear with me guys - there is alot of info all over the place and I am trying to reorganize it into sections. This has had a lot of work done (congrats to those so far) and shouldn't be too hard to get to FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

new photos

Hey all - I have a dried whole Lingzhi sitting on my shelf, so I can provide another high-res image. Does anyone have easy access to medicinal preparations of it? Debivort 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lingzhi successful collab for July 07

Support:

1. Debivort 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 2. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Already fairly well developed. Biased toward medicinal aspects, should be ballanced in that respect, but could be an article with a lot of attention in various circles. Debivort 05:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wow what a surprise! Great amount of groundwork done. Let's go.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent Reishi Research link The following link: Independent Research Database on Reishi Medicinal Properties (http://www.vermontmushrooms.com/herbmed_gmm.php?HerbID=3) is hosted by my company (Green Mountain Mycosystems, LLC), and the research database is created and maintained by HerbMed which is a non-profit dedicated to providing independent scientific information on traditional herbs which offers memberships for a modest fee to cover the costs of maintaining the database. In the case of Reishi, Maitake, Shiitake, and Cordyceps, my business leases this information from them (dynamically provided from their site to ours every time a person is viewing a database entry) to make it publicly available for free instead of having people need to purchase a membership to view this important information. The link to this databased historically in the ling zhi article goes straight to the database, which complements the ling zhi entry and provides up to date research on reishi which is entirely independent from the financial interests of my business. I started my business out of my passion for medicinal mushrooms and fail to understand how a link to a free database on reishi's medicinal properties can be considered spam simply because a known spammer complained about another business having a link (who I will not mention, but you can look at the history to know who I refer to if you want to). Any feedback on reasons for or against removal of this link would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, David Demarest ReishiDave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reishidave (talk • contribs) 07:05:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I can see your point. However, there's obviously some complexity to this issue that will likely get missed, as not all readers and contributors read the talk page. So it is very likely that inclusion of your link will lead again to notions of "if this link is in there, mine might very well be in there too", placing the onus on admins and other contributors to sort out what is commercial spam and what is not. Ideally the information given in the HerbMed database should filter through into the wiki entry--as you have access to this information, I can see one possible solution in that you include to the article any new info as it becomes available. This may seem arduous, but it's in fact easier to do with a curated database to which you have access than trying to gather info from many different sources, as most other contributors have to do. While I see the value of having direct access to a Lingzhi database, the linking via your commercial enterprise in my opinion precludes inclusion of your link. Malljaja 09:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to add upon the wiki entry applicable information on reishi and definitely do so as my schedule allows; however the sheer volume of research available in the database would create an very long winded reishi entry or a relative lack of organized scientific research in my opinion. I can't help but think that items 3 and 4 of "Links Normally to be Avoided"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking) are the only applicable reasons to delete the Independent Reishi Database link but that they do not preclude a commercial business being linked to if the link is actually providing useful independent information instead of primarily attempting to promote or sell products. Just my additional 2 cents, David Demarest ReishiDave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reishidave (talk • contribs) 00:18, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

SPAM ?

• While Chinese texts have recorded medicinal uses of lingzhi for more than 2,000 years, a few sources erroneously claim more than 4,000 years.

• reference : http://www.reishiessence.com
• shows mainly items for sale

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

Reishi spores posses same beneficial properties of the mushroom and are way more concentrated?

The spores of the mushroom are sixty times more potent still, but the cell walls of the spores must be "cracked" before they are bioavailable to us. Once cracked though, the spore will deteriorate, and the common practice is to combine them into oil for preservation. Dragon Herbs has an awesome cracked reishi spore oil. Cracked reishi spores will be almost impossible to find, so one should jump at the chance to take some if available, especially if one is dealing with an immune deficiency issue.

Healing Thresholds: A Modern Journey into Taoist Health Philosophy (Rehmannia Dean Thomas, 2010), p. 187 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA292 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal

• Move to Reishi. More commonly used English name for this plant. Badagnani (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Side effects

I have moved this side effect paragraph to the discussion because it has no citation, and because I corrected it with citations earlier but my edits were deleted.
It has been shown in some studies that long term use of lingzhi can result in some mild side effects, including dryness of the nasal passages, mouth and throat, as well as stomach upset and nosebleed.

Preparation

I have moved a portion from the section on Preparation to the paragraph below for dicussion on its merits. It lacks citations to support it, and its main motive seems to be to disparage scientific studies and non-traditional, modern, Western, or mass-production preparation methods regardless of whether or not they have medicinal effects simply because they are non-traditional. The explanation of what the traditional preparation method are also needs more citation, however I am leaving it in the article because it serves to inform rather than to bias.

Because mushrooms contain chitin which locks up medicinal components, preparations of lingzhi are unlikely to be medicinally active, unless there has been a prolonged hot water extraction. Simply tincturing the mushroom in ethanol or powdering it and encapsulating it makes preparations that are essentially inert and may account for some of the inconsistency in research results. Additionally, mushrooms traditionally incorporate or transform constituents from their host trees and mycelial fractions grown in sawdust or other substrate may differ appreciably from the whole fungus.

Structure, wording, and references

I've just taken out the entire section Modern scientific studies and incorporated some usable bits into Scientific studies and therapeutic usage. There were several issues with the MSS section: one, it was a raw mush of factual or fictious content in prose that had little coherence or logical direction; second, much of the info was already given in the preceding sections; and third, few if any references were provided. I've also removed the numbered citations at the bottom of the page, because they are useless in a dynamically changing editing environment. I apologise if I deleted any references of value, but at least part of the blame has to be placed onto those who've ignored the guidelines for citing sources. Malljaja (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation on frequency of growth?

What is the source for the statistic that the mushroom grows on "2 or 3" out of 10,000 trees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelgombiner (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Is it better known in English as lingzhi or reishi? Badagnani 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My question exactly! I thought this mushroom was better known as "reishi".24.83.178.11 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

I think the general public knows it better as Reishi. In Chinese medicine it is better known as Ling zhi. It seems too much trouble to go through and change the references for consistency and to move it. They get redirected here all the same. Karen S Vaughan 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is known almost exclusively as "reishi" in English, and is labeled as such by sellers. The section on languages is misleading, because in English it is called "reishi" as a loan word from the Japanese. That fact is not mentioned.77Mike77 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

References and research

I agree with Malljaja, this section of the article can be improved. However, deleting interesting research (like Reishi enzyme kinetics experiments) and calling them "pointless", is not the way to do it. Jatlas (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This figure is pointless, simply because it doesn't provide meaningful information. It is entirely unclear what the activity of this enzyme does (even in the original entry), and why, therefore, it is a good thing that Ganoderma depresses its activity. Also, there's a reduction by ~50%—what does this mean? Fifty percent of what, and is this decrease biological significant? Have these findings been replicated in other studies and what were the controls the authors used? This is very primary research data without any context, so this does not really belong here. The same goes for the large number of studies given in the in-line citations, which seem merely aimed at a WOW! effect, until closer inspection reveals that most of them have been published in obscure journals, mainly using in animal models, or in vitro. This article needs a serious overhaul, because Ganoderma is an interesting group of fungi that make an interesting variety of compounds. I've started on this by developing a prose for the major findings to makes this entry more conform with WP:MoS. More is to come. Malljaja (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Malljaja, well said. I would like to expand some of this research in the current form (not going back to bullet points). The research you have outlined and summarized looks good, although it has been skimmed down to the essentials. In regards to the enzyme research, I believe this deserves to be mentioned, although it should be presented differently this time. Research with 5-alpha-reductase (which synthesizes dihydrotestosterone) is analogous to research you posted already like information about the inhibition of the enzyme "lanosterol 14α-demethylase" (with synthesizes cholesterol). Looking forward to working on this article with you. Jatlas (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me—I fully agree that the research section deserves some expansion and also some critical evaluation. The recent review by Paterson (cited in the entry) may be one source that could be helpful, as it discusses some of the shortcomings of the empirical and anecdotal research that has a dominated the Ganoderma literature vs the relatively new development of evidence-based studies on these species. We can kick around some ideas on how to incorporate this. By the way, I very much like the gallery pictures you have added. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference on morphology is broken. There is no author, title, or even journal cited, so it's not obvious how to fix the broken link: http://www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/708ae68d64b17c52,72e9ed69099c0eef,6b7a7dab0ec964e7.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.5.58 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lingzhi mushroom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706000115/http://74.220.217.29/dao/bibliography/taishanglingbaozhicaopin to http://74.220.217.29/dao/bibliography/taishanglingbaozhicaopin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lingzhi mushroom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831052918/http://sci.cancerresearchuk.org/labs/med_mush/med_mush.html to http://sci.cancerresearchuk.org/labs/med_mush/med_mush.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)