Subject: Re: Biological function of hallucinogens in fungi ?

From: [email-masked] (darin)
Date: 23 Jan 1996 01:35:39 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Jan Sunde <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> Though mycology is not my special field as a microbiologist, I still 
> think it's a fascinating field of biology with many (to me) strange 
> phenomena.
> 
> One of these is the touchy subject of hallucinogens :
> 
> I know that a lot of research on hallucinogenic compounds present in 
> mushrooms was shut down in the sixties, due to the illegalization of the 
> mushrooms as drugs and discovery of LSD, etc. I'm just wondering if there 
> was conducted any research on which role(s) these compounds play in the 
> fungus itself. As far as I know (I'm not an expert) all the hallucinogens 
> belong to one group of compounds (ergot derivatives ?).
> Does anybody out there know why certain fungi produce these compounds and 
> others don't ? Or do they all produce one kind of ergot derivative, 
> whereas only a few of them are hallucinogens ? I hope this doesn't sound 
> like a stupid question, but I have almost no knowledge of even the basics 
> of fungal metabolism.
> 
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
>   

it is a channel to other dimensions. 
-- 
 darin
[email-masked]
"cogito cogito ergo cogito sum" - ambrose bierce

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Berlstein)
Date: 23 Jan 1996 04:19:08 GMT

Re: function of hallucinogen in mushroom-

Jim's Chemical warfare theory

I believe the function of fungal toxins is for the poisoning of one's 
mycological neighbors, and generally occurs mostly in fruiting, when the 
nitrogen is low, so the resourse is worth the cost of producing these 
chemical weapons.  I do not believe it is to eliminate waste products.  I 
scoff at the idea.  Creating these molecules, some quite complex, like 
the amanita toxins, cannot be done too easily.  It would be like if you 
took all your waste paper and made an origami eifel tower, and then threw 
it away.  It does not make sense.  Anyway, that's what I think.  Anyone 
else with a theory to throw out?
So far there is:

1) Waste disposal
2) Trans-dimensional portal
3) Jim's Chemical warfare theory

-
  JIM BERLSTEIN, B.F.D.-    [email-masked]

---

From: Jan Sunde <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jan 1996 12:54:34 GMT

Tom Volk <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Hi Jan.
<snip>
 the fruiting body may act as a "sink" for metabolic 
>wastes. These compounds are then "expelled" to the outside 
>environment when the mushroom decays.  According to Dr. 
>Rippon, it is only a coincidence that some of these fungal 
>secondary metabolites are toxic or hallucinogenic to 
>humans.  In his inimitable style, Dr. Rippon describes the 
>mushroom as the "fungal toilet."
>
>Food for thought, eh?
>---Tom
>
There is one major flaw to this theory that strikes me, however.
How can it then be that some species of mushrooms are edible *no matter in which environment 
they  grow* Of course, the different species of mushrooms are connected to one particular kind 
of environment, but they can't foresee local differences in, say, concentrations of heavy 
metals, etc. Mushrooms do not behave, as far as I know, like mussels that accumulates toxins 
depending on seasonal differences in the local algal flora.

Jan

---

From: Tom Volk <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jan 1996 15:06:57 GMT

>  JIM BERLSTEIN, B.F.D.-    [email-masked]

Hi Jim.  Certainly some fungal mycelia produce 
compounds to protect them from other fungi, and 
especially from bacteria. However, your chemical warfare 
theory would make some sense if the mushrooms in question 
were actually in contact with their fungal neighbors.  
Being aerial, thre is no such contact, or even opportunity 
for diffusion of the toxins.  So far as I know the toxins 
are not found in the mycelium in anywhere near the quantity 
(if at all) in which they are found concentrated in the 
fruiting body.

I don't really know the answer to "why" fungi produce 
toxins, but the waste disposal mechanism makes the most 
sense to me.

---Tom
 
********************************************  (0)  
Tom Volk                                     (000)
Center for Forest Mycology Research,        (00000)
Forest Products Lab, Madison Wisconsin       (000)
& UW- Madison Dept. of Botany                (000)
[email-masked]                      | |
********************************************  | |  
http://www.wisc.edu/botany/fungi/volkmyco.html

---

From: Tom Volk <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jan 1996 15:19:47 GMT

>depending on seasonal differences in the local algal flora.

ah, but mushrooms *can* accumulate toxins from the 
environment.  certain Laccaria species have been shown to 
accumiulate arsenic.  And there was a major study on the 
accumulation of radiation and metals  by the fungi after 
the chernobyl nuclear accident in the USSR. The lichens in 
Scandinavia certainly accumulated radioactive metals, 
hence the danger to the reinderr that ate them and the 
people who ate the reindeer. As far as I know there is a 
wide variability in the amount of toxins produced bya  
particular species depending on the strain and the 
environmental conditions.  I for one will not eat mushrooms 
>from  fertilized and herbicided lawns and especially golf 
courses. 

OTOH, Some fungi are apparently able to exclude 
environmental toxins, and some fungi have the mechanisms 
that happen to produce toxic chemicals in a wide variety of 
environments.  But not enough study has been done in this 
area to give a definitive answer.  maybe someone else 
knows?

---Tom

---

From: Jan Sunde <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jan 1996 12:48:06 GMT

>it is a channel to other dimensions. 

I can accept that (sort of), but WHY ?

---

From: Thomas O'Dell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:15:43 -0800

Psilocybin, at least, is produced in the mycelium. Psilocybe semilanceata 
which can inhabit the roots of grasses, shows antagonism in culture to 
some other root pathogenic fungi. the same situation occurs with 
clavicepitaceous endophytes of grasses except that the compunds are toxic 
to animal grazers... so in some cases the "toxin" is apparently involved in 
fungal mutualisms with higher plants.

> toxins, but the waste disposal mechanism makes the most 

[email-masked]
Mycology is better than Urology!

---

From: Tom Volk <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Jan 1996 23:07:34 GMT

>fungal mutualisms with higher plants.

Hi Tom.  Thanks for pointing this out.  I had forgottten 
about Psilocybin being produced in the mycelium.

I think once more fungal systems are studied it will be 
discovered that there are many "reasons" for the many 
different types of toxins. This is an interesting example 
of a system that *has* been studied.

---Tom

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Berlstein)
Date: 23 Jan 1996 21:34:00 GMT

Re: Function of Hallucinogens-

Chemical Warfare- to prevent being eaten!

I got some E-mail from someone who rightly pointed out that this chemical 
warfare could be focused on potential mammalian (or other) mushroom 
eating organisms.  A good point.  Since natural selection is not focused 
on anything but results, you would expect chemicals produced by mushrooms 
to be selected for if they benefited the mushroom in any way.  So, 
fighting those who would eat you, and those who would infect you, and 
those who would steal your food or space are all possible.  The complex 
deadly aminita toxin has 7 amino acids in a ring, with an odd amino acid 
in the center.  Psilocybin is much simpler, being derived from one amino 
acid.  Many plants produce compounds like psilocybin, so the pressence of 
these compounds is wide spread among the plant kingdom.  The amanita 
toxins are found only in mushrooms, I think.  
       On a seperate but related note, my dog stopped eating its food 
after it was recalled for possible ergot contamination (LSD isomers), 
which gives me an idea for an experiment:  Put two kinds of food out for 
rats to eat, one that is full of psilocybin and one that is not.  The 
foods should both be flavors they like, say cheese and bacon.  So, you 
make one test group get both foods with one of them "spiked", another 
group gets both foods with the other flavor spiked this time, and a third 
group gets both foods, unspiked.  If you like torturing rats you can have 
a forth group, which gets both spiked diets, forcing them into a life of 
hallucinogen abuse- it could be worth it so you could maybe see why the 
rats might want to avoid this stuff.  Anyway, you could do the whole 
thing in triplicate with 12 rat groups.  Surely there is some graduate 
student out there who wants to? Actually, you could use this protocol to 
test any animals natural ability to learn to associate a certain flavor 
with a certain chemical, just as they must in nature.

-

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Heytler)
Date: 26 Jan 1996 21:00:20 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
Tom Volk  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>   [LOT OF TEXT DELETED TO SAVE SPACE]
>
>>Does anybody out there know why certain fungi produce these compounds 
>>and others don't ? Or do they all produce one kind of ergot= derivative, 
>>whereas only a few of them are hallucinogens ? 
>
>According to John W. Rippon, Emeritus professor at the 
>University of Chicago and author of the most widely used 
>medical mycology textbook, there is no known biological 
>function of fungal toxins.  According to Dr. Rippon,
      [much deleted for brevity]
>  ...  the fruiting body may act as a "sink" for metabolic 
>wastes ... it is only a coincidence that some of these fungal 

  This "garbage-dump" concept of toxins has been around for a long, long 
time.  It makes some degree of physiological sense, particularly with 
regard to non-specific resinous irritants such as occur in some 
Lactarius species.  However, with the highly selective agents such as 
the halucinogens and, even more so, the complex deadly amanitoxins, this 
"dump" concept is biochemically and genetically untenable.
  Biochemically, these compounds are not a polyterpene gunk that might 
self-assemble.  They are particular isomers of specialized  compounds 
which must require a sequence of enzymes for their assembly, and 
considerable metabolic energy. The amanitins are particularly exotic 
macrocyclic polypeptides of highly specific and genetically conserved 
amino acid sequences.  Such things, as we know from studies of 
polypeptide hormones and of bacterial antibiotics, do NOT just drop out 
of a pot of amino acids.
  Mycotoxins are metabolically expensive and that leads to the genetic
or evolution dilemma.  Any costly trait which doesn't have survival 
value will tend to be altered quickly in evolution.  If slight 
alterations in structure did not compromise survival value, then 
variations of the mycotoxin structures - different amino acid sequences 
or a methyl group more or less - would quickly creep in. In fact, the 
structures of these toxins are perfectly conserved (in those species 
that have them) across species and even genera. And these conserved 
structures are in general essentially optimal for bioactivity relative 
to potential variants where these have been synthesized and tested.
  For these reasons I am convinced that such toxins are a competitive 
mechanism for fungi and almost certainly at the mycelial level.  
Inhibiting bacterial competition and insect larval predation seem 
reasonable.  Low tissue levels present in (harvested) mycelium have been 
cited against this. Still, toxin production by mycelium has been well 
documented. Since most of these toxins are water-soluble, leeching from 
the mycelium into surrounding medium appears not only likely but 
functionally vital. Since such leeching cannot occur in the carpophore, 
its higher toxin content may be expected.
--Peter G. Heytler
   [biochemist, retired]

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Winder)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 19:00:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] (Jim Berlstein) writes:
>chemical weapons.

I agree, but I wouldn't limit it to acting on other fungi.  We know that 
secondary compounds in plants can provide defenses against a wide variety of 
organisms, including insects, etc.  Many mushrooms seem only to produce 
characteristic secondary compounds in the fruiting body (for example, the 
almond smell of Agaricus augustus is not present in mycelial cultures, at 
least in our lab). These compounds probably act on fruiting body feeders 
and parasites, and not just on antagonists of underground mycelial
growth.  Some probably do defend against other fungi (why, for example, does 
Hypomyces love to attack some mushrooms, but not others?).  I think insects 
and nematodes would be considerably important targets for these compounds, 
however, either in terms of repelling them to preserve the fruiting body's 
ability to produce and disseminate spores, or attracting them so that they 
act as vectors for spore distribution.  Secondary compounds in mushrooms are 
potentially capable of doing a lot of different things in terms of ecological
interactions, if the plant kingdom serves as any indication.  -RSW

  RICHARD WINDER                    Title: Research Scientist
  Canadian Forest Service           Phone: (604) 363-0773
  Victoria, B.C.                    Internet: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Steven Carpenter)
Date: 27 Jan 1996 03:04:47 GMT

Until somebody does real research on this subject, we will never really
know the function of these compounds.  There are lots of GREAT hypotheses
being brought up here, but none of them have been tested.  Until some
real ecological/physiological work has been done, this will remain 
armchair mycology.

-Steven E. Carpenter
 Cascade Research Associates
   & Abbey Lane Laboratory
 [email-masked]

Richard Winder ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, 
: [email-masked] (Jim Berlstein) writes:
: >Re: function of hallucinogen in mushroom-
: >
: >Jim's Chemical warfare theory
: >
: >I believe the function of fungal toxins is for the poisoning of one's 
: >mycological neighbors, and generally occurs mostly in fruiting, when the 
: >nitrogen is low, so the resourse is worth the cost of producing these 
: >chemical weapons.

: I agree, but I wouldn't limit it to acting on other fungi.  We know that 
: secondary compounds in plants can provide defenses against a wide variety of 
: organisms, including insects, etc.  Many mushrooms seem only to produce 
: characteristic secondary compounds in the fruiting body (for example, the 
: almond smell of Agaricus augustus is not present in mycelial cultures, at 
: least in our lab). These compounds probably act on fruiting body feeders 
: and parasites, and not just on antagonists of underground mycelial
: growth.  Some probably do defend against other fungi (why, for example, does 
: Hypomyces love to attack some mushrooms, but not others?).  I think insects 
: and nematodes would be considerably important targets for these compounds, 
: however, either in terms of repelling them to preserve the fruiting body's 
: ability to produce and disseminate spores, or attracting them so that they 
: act as vectors for spore distribution.  Secondary compounds in mushrooms are 
: potentially capable of doing a lot of different things in terms of ecological
: interactions, if the plant kingdom serves as any indication.  -RSW

:   RICHARD WINDER                    Title: Research Scientist
:   Canadian Forest Service           Phone: (604) 363-0773
:   Victoria, B.C.                    Internet: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 18:47:50 -0800

On 23 Jan 1996, Tom Volk wrote:

> >chemical weapons....
> Being aerial, thre is no such contact, ...

Well, perhaps they are produced for aerially dispersed mycotrophs.  Some 
fungi specialize on using fruiting bodies as a substrate, and I'd imagine 
more than a couple bacteria do as well.

The first reply (that hallucinogens are simply metabolic wastes) is very 
interesting.  I think though that these wastes could more easily be 
excreted into the soil by the mycelium rather than transported aloft, 
unless these wastes were peculiar to the formation of a fruiting body.

Food for thought indeed.

Curt Seeliger                                 [email-masked]   
Humbled State University
Arcata, CA      95521

The views expressed herein are       "I think millions know what I'm talking
not only my views, but also the       about when I say that every time I
views of Humboldt State University    vote, I have to wash my hands.  Maybe
and the rest of the world as well,    it's the sterling example of Newt
so wise up bucko!                     Gingrich... He blamed Susan Smith's
                                      behavior on Democrats.  OK: I blame
(Void where prohibited.  Your         Susan Smith's stepfather's behavior on
mileage may vary.  Don't ever push    Republicans."
the RED button!  Think for yourself.) -- Ian Sholes

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Stewart)
Date: 28 Jan 1996 11:38:58 -0400

This is purely speculation, but have there been any studies in how fungi 
have adapted to spread their spores through animal ingestion of basidiocarps?
Is there any possibility that the compounds in question cause: 
a) fast transit thru the digestive tract (diarrhea), ensuring the 
redistribution of spores in the general area that the species is already 
successfully established, along with a plentiful nitrogen source via the 
largely-undigested gut contents?
b) death or disability of the animal ingesting the mushroom, which in 
turn disadvantages the animal to allow predation and death? In the former 
the spores would release from the decomposing carcass, another nitrogen 
source, and establish the mycelia at that site. The latter would allow 
transport of the spores in the predator, another source of distribution.

Just some coffee- and drowsiness-induces Sunday morning musings, no 
hallucinogens involved!  ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABIOGEN c/o Paul Stewart			Biotech Solutions For
RR #2 Vernon Bridge				The Agri-Fish And Food
Prince Edward Island				Industries. Technical
CANADA   C0A 2E0				And Science Writing.
[email-masked]				Training And Seminars.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Winder)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 18:46:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
>have adapted to spread their spores through animal ingestion of basidiocarps?

Underground fruiters such as truffles, deer truffles, and other hypogeous 
species emit strong odors which attract various mammals, aiding in their 
dissemination.  Bird's nest fungi (Cyathus sp.) are known to be spread in 
the feces of grazers like deer and cows.  The peridioles shoot out of the cup 
with the force of rain, landing on nearby grass and whatnot, which is grazed. 
The spores survive digestion to be deposited in a new area.
Pilobolus is a similar story, without the elaborate fruiting body.  For more 
straightforward vectoring, you can look at how fruit flies attracted to 
fermenting fruit track yeasts around.   -RSW

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Winder)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 18:50:25 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
>real ecological/physiological work has been done, this will remain 

But its so comfortable in my armchair! :-)

-RSW

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Winder)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 00:34:18 GMT

>polypeptide hormones and of bacterial antibiotics, do NOT just drop out 

Actually, recent detox. work has stressed the role of
mycorrhizal fruiting bodies in concentrating inorganic elements like heavy
metals, copper, etc. away from plant roots.  This kind of soil ammelioration is
beneficial to both symbionts.  Work in Japan has focused on a
detox. role for nitrogen deposited in animal wastes and corpses for a whole
succession of mycorrhizal fungi- amorphous polymers would not 
have to come into play for sequestering N.  With toxic secondary compounds, I
think there is a danger of looking at things too narrowly.  What is toxic to 
one creature may in fact be inert or attractive for another, either through 
coevolution or plain chance or a little of both.  The mode of action for 
amanitoxins on fungi vs. mammals, if it exists, would surely be completely 
different, since we would no longer be talking about creatures with livers, 
etc.  Many of these compounds probably serve dual roles.

[Text about conservation/energy cost deleted]

>its higher toxin content may be expected.

While I agree that some toxic secondary compounds are produced throughout the
life cycle, and that compounds like hydrophobins could prevent leeching in
masses of tissue, I'm sure that others are probably induced or brought to
greater concentrations in the fruiting bodies, to deter some predators while
attracting vectors.  I think all of these compounds require a lot more 
case-by-case analysis before we know which stories are the prevalent ones.
  -RSW