TopShelfMushrooms.com

A Mushroom Trial Uses a Different Species Than the Label

posted on

By TopShelfMushrooms.com Editorial Team

If a study tested one fungus and your label names another, the study’s results describe what the researchers actually gave their participants. They do not automatically carry over to the species on your label. Before drawing any conclusion, work out which of three situations you are in. The two names may point to the same fungus, with one simply older. The label may use a name that has been applied loosely. Or the two may be different species that share a common name. Then compare the part of the fungus and the preparation, because those can differ even when the species matches.

This article does not say that any species or product works, and it cannot tell you whether a particular bottle contains what its label says. It shows how to read the evidence more carefully and gives you a checklist you can use with any trial and any label.

Why Names on Labels and in Trials Don’t Always Line Up

Reishi: one Latin name, several fungi

A 2018 study in Frontiers in Microbiology tested twenty manufactured reishi products and seventeen grow-your-own kits sold as containing Ganoderma lucidum. The researchers sequenced the DNA in each. None of the manufactured products contained G. lucidum in the strict sense. Of the manufactured products that yielded readable DNA in the first round, 13 of 14 were Ganoderma lingzhi, a species native to East Asia. Most of the products also contained traces of more than one Ganoderma species.

The authors explain that for about a century the name G. lucidum was applied to most shiny-capped Ganoderma species. The species now called G. lucidum in the strict sense is native to Europe and parts of China. They presumed the labeling errors were unintentional. They also wrote that current evidence suggests G. lingzhi is the species most widely used in traditional Chinese medicine, while adding that more data are needed. Some papers use the name G. sichuanense for the same fungus as G. lingzhi. If you are searching the literature, search under both names.

For readers of trials, the important point is that it is often unclear which species was actually studied in a paper that says G. lucidum. The label and the trial can share a name and still describe different fungi.

Two limits apply. The survey was small, and the products were bought online in the United States before 2018, so it is not a measure of today’s market. It also does not show that one species is better or worse for any purpose. The authors cite one 2016 study finding that G. lingzhi extracts contained more triterpenic acids than G. lucidum in the strict sense. They also state that, apart from G. lucidum itself, no study has evaluated the medicinal properties of the other species they found in the grow-your-own kits.

A separate 2017 DNA barcoding study by Raja and colleagues found the same kind of problem. Reishi-labeled capsules did not contain G. lucidum, and a capsule labeled as cordyceps contained Tolypocladium inflatum, a fungus from a different genus.

Cordyceps: one common name, several fungi

Cordyceps shows the problem from another angle. A 2024 Botanical Adulterants Prevention Bulletin by Hobbs, Upton, and Gafner explains that the wild caterpillar fungus is Ophiocordyceps sinensis, formerly named Cordyceps sinensis. That is a rename, not a different fungus. Many older papers and some labels still use the old name.

The bulletin also reports that, according to the American Herbal Products Association’s Herbs of Commerce, three species can be sold under the common name “cordyceps” in the United States: Ophiocordyceps sinensis, Cordyceps militaris, and Paecilomyces hepiali, which has since been reclassified as Samsoniella hepiali. The proposed labeling adds the scientific name in brackets for the second and third. The bulletin states that supplements in Europe and North America are dominated by cultivated C. militaris or by mycelium products, and that many fermentation products are not O. sinensis.

The bulletin also describes an ingredient called Cs-4. It was long believed to be a strain of C. sinensis and is still sometimes labeled that way. It was later found to be made from S. hepiali, a distantly related fungus. The bulletin lists human trials of Cs-4 and related products. At least two exercise trials in its reference list use the name Cordyceps sinensis alongside the Cs-4 product name in their titles. In our reading, taking such a trial as evidence about wild cordyceps or about C. militaris would be a species jump.

Chemistry is one reason species differences matter. The bulletin notes that cordycepin, a marker compound, is often absent or found only in trace amounts in O. sinensis but is abundant in C. militaris. Based on studies showing chemical and pharmacological similarity, the authors say C. militaris may be the most appropriate substitute if it is correctly labeled. That is a judgment about similarity, not a trial result. They also note that chemical profiles of wild and cultivated O. sinensis can differ greatly, and that it is not known whether this matters clinically.

Formulation: The Part of the Fungus and the Preparation

A species match is only the first step. The same species can be sold as fruiting body, as mycelium, as mycelium grown on grain, or as spores, and these are not the same material. In the reishi study, microscope examination suggested that the manufactured products were made from a mix of mature fruiting bodies, immature fruiting bodies, cultures, and spores alone. On the microscope slides, one coffee product showed no definitive Ganoderma tissue.

The cordyceps bulletin, citing an FDA compliance policy guide, says the fungal part (for example fruiting body or mycelium) must be accurately stated on United States labels, and that mycelium biomass should be declared as such because it includes the substrate it grew on. It also cites a study of commercial fungal supplements in which some products were up to 83 percent alpha-glucans, which the bulletin says are likely mostly starch or glycogen. This is a summary of a source, not legal advice. Our guide to fruiting body versus mycelium covers the part question in more depth.

Trials can leave these details out too. Reporting guidelines for herbal trials, an extension of the CONSORT statement written for herbal medicines, ask authors to give the Latin name, the part used, the extraction method, and whether a voucher specimen was kept. Mushrooms are fungi, not plants, so this article borrows the same logic rather than claiming the guideline was written for them. A Cochrane review of herbal medicine trials for low back pain found that fewer than half reported the Latin name of the product. That review covers a different condition, but it shows how often the detail is missing.

The Species Mismatch Checklist

Use this with the trial’s full text and the product label side by side.

  1. Write both names exactly as printed. Copy the species name from the trial and from the label, including any bracketed names and any common name such as reishi, lingzhi, or cordyceps.
  2. Read the trial’s methods, not just the title. Does it give the Latin name, the strain or source, and how identity was confirmed, for example by DNA testing or a stored voucher specimen? If the paper never says which species was used, mark the species as unknown.
  3. Sort the mismatch into one of three types.
    • Renamed: the same fungus under an older or newer name, such as Cordyceps sinensis and Ophiocordyceps sinensis.
    • Loosely applied: a name used for several fungi, such as G. lucidum on products that tested as G. lingzhi.
    • Shared common name: different species sold under one word, such as the three species that can be sold as “cordyceps.”
  4. Compare the part of the fungus. Was the trial material fruiting body, mycelium, mycelium biomass with substrate, or spores? Does the label say which?
  5. Compare the preparation. Was it a whole powder or an extract, and if an extract, how was it made? Was it a named, branded ingredient like Cs-4? If so, the result belongs to that ingredient, and your label may or may not contain it.
  6. Look for verification on both sides. A label name is a claim, not a test result. The cordyceps bulletin says combining DNA and chemical analysis gives the highest assurance of identity. If the trial was registered, compare the paper’s description of the material with the registration record as well.
  7. Score the match.
    • Species, part, and preparation all match: the trial is relevant to the label, though one trial still has its own limits, such as size, design, and who was studied.
    • The species matches but the part or preparation differs: treat the fit as partial and do not assume the result transfers.
    • The species differs or is unknown: treat the trial as evidence about a different material. Unless studies have compared the two directly, whether the result transfers is an open question.

What Is Known and What Remains Uncertain

Known:

  • Mismatches between trial names, label names, and actual contents have been documented for reishi and cordyceps, and the authors of those studies generally attribute them to naming confusion rather than intent.
  • In at least some cases, related species differ in chemistry, as with triterpenic acids in Ganoderma and cordycepin in Cordyceps.
  • According to the cordyceps bulletin, several species can share the common name cordyceps in the United States, and the fungal part is supposed to be stated on labels.

Uncertain:

  • Whether species-level differences change how people respond. The sources reviewed here do not establish that either way.
  • How common mismatches are in today’s market. The surveys are small and dated.
  • Whether minor species detected by sequencing matter for anything.
  • Whether a given trial reports enough detail to judge, since many do not.

The Next Practical Decision

If your checklist ends at “match,” the trial is worth discussing with a pharmacist or doctor as one piece of evidence. If it ends at “partial,” “mismatch,” or “unknown,” the useful decision is not whether the fungus is good or bad. It is whether the evidence you found applies to the product you are holding, and the honest answer may be that it does not yet. In that case you can ask the manufacturer what species and part the product contains and how that was confirmed, and bring the checklist and the label to a health professional before deciding anything.

Health and Safety Limits

This article is educational. It is not medical or legal advice and does not diagnose, treat, or recommend anything for any condition. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health advises checking the scientific evidence rather than relying on ads or personal stories, and reminds readers that “natural” does not necessarily mean safe. It also advises learning about side effects and possible interactions with medications before using a supplement, telling every health care provider what you use, and not using an unproven product to delay seeing a provider about a health problem. The NCCIH page is dated September 2016. If you take medications, have a health condition, or are pregnant, ask a pharmacist or doctor before using any mushroom supplement.

On cordyceps, the bulletin’s authors say that substitution among the commonly traded species is mainly an economic issue rather than a safety one. The safety concern they highlight is adulteration, including two case reports of lead poisoning tied to contaminated cordyceps, in which the source of the lead was not established.

Sources

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *