ArticleCurrent microbiology2015
Photoprotective and Antimutagenic Activity of Agaricus subrufescens Basidiocarp Extracts.
Article in Current microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cryopreservation at -75°C of Agaricus subrufescens on wheat grains with sucrose.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The photoprotective and antimutagenic activity of opened and closed basidiocarps of Agaricus subrufescens (=A. blazei; =A. brasiliensis) obtained by different extraction methods were evaluated on Aspergillus nidulans conidia submitted to ultraviolet (UV) light. The aqueous extracts were obtained by three extraction methods: maceration, infusion, and decoction, at two different extraction times. The extracts of A. subrufescens did not present toxicity for A. nidulans conidia. A suspension of A. nidulans conidia was submitted to extracts before and after the exposure to UV light. All basidiocarp extracts, regardless of the extraction method or development stage, protected A. nidulans conidia against the damaging effects of the mutagenic agent. The antimutagenic and photoprotective activity was strengthened with extracts obtained by 168-h maceration, followed by 24-h maceration and 60-min infusion and, at last, by 30-min infusion. Although the extracts presented protector effect as well as recoverer effect to the action of UV light, the preventive effect was more evident. Differences in the biological activity in function of the different development stages were detected with greater antimutagenic and photoprotective activity for the opened basidiocarps. However, the extraction method is the most important factor to be considered when compared to the basidiocarp development stage to obtain better antimutagenic and photoprotective activity of A. subrufescens basidiocarps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26092419What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.