Talk:Trametes versicolor

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mycelia225. Peer reviewers: GoldenStonefly5, Icteridae.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BrokenSource

Source #4 indicating the ACA has spoken on the efficacy of this mushroom or its compounds, for cancer treatment, returns an irrelevant link, and needs to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadez03 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment

The external link returns a 404. I don't know whether the external link has moved or changed its address so not editing entry to remove.

This is a terrible picture of this fungus. Normally green is not found on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.180.20 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the picture is atypical and have changed it to a more common one. I also removed another atypical image that was in the gallery showing larger than usual pore surface. I actually believe it was an image of another species, Trametes villosa, due the larger than usual pore size. --Dejitarob (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Trametes versicolor is able to decompose lignin and produce enzymes that also break down other easily degradable compounds such as pentachlorophenol. For this reason, silk yarn can be used to clean, for example, contaminated sawing areas from wood treatment materials. The silk worm disrupts pentachlorophenol effectively and does not produce toxic chlorine salts which some of the white wax particles may form from chlorophenols.

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/skemi/vk/tuomela/tiiviste.pdf (in Finnish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.175.74 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Peparation of Trametes

When immature, prepare as any wild mushroom. Mature, decoct under steam pressure for broth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.177.180 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dog and alternative medicine research

This revert was warranted because the editor is citing primary lab studies in dogs (!!) and an alternative medicine source to imply relevance to anti-disease activity. We follow WP:MEDRS review sources for the encyclopedia, not primary research - see WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8. Zefr (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment regarding willingness to help with sources per your comment on my talk page. Are many studies not performed in animals prior to being performed in humans? What is your specific concern with it being performed in dogs in this case? This article is not about the medical use of mushrooms in humans, it is about the mushroom and the section heading includes "research." Are animal studies not research? The source was U Penn Veterinary School of Medicine conducting the research. The NIH also states "In animal models, direct antitumor effects resulted in reduced tumor growth and metastases." Does not seem like quackery to me. DrGvago (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Dog studies are primary research in the lab, and probably non-replicable in humans - see WP:MEDANIMAL. The Research section should contain WP:MEDRS reviews to indicate potential anti-disease activity from rigorous clinical trials in humans - if they existed (they do not not at present) - not preliminary research in animals or humans per WP:NOTJOURNAL, i.e., an encyclopedia summarizing established scientific evidence is not a discussion section of a research paper. As for publications in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, that is a quackery source published by Hindawi which is plainly revealed as untrustworthy on WP:CITEWATCH. Zefr (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Why must it only relate to humans and veterinary medicine not be included? This is about a mushroom and the "uses and research" section does not specify use and research only in humans. Are you opposed to the NIH as a source, in general, for expanding on this article? DrGvago (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, would you consider this as an appropriate secondary source? DrGvago (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the only NIH/NCI publication (Oct 2020) I see on T. versicolor, and would qualify for use in the article as evidence of "research", with no conclusions or generally-accepted clinical practices using the mushroom or P-K. PMID 22185453 is 9 years out of date, WP:MEDDATE. "Relevance" of research is a matter of WP:MEDASSESS and WP:WEIGHT, for which dog studies would not qualify. Zefr (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any problems with this study? DrGvago (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Or this one? DrGvago (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Those sources may be usable as evidence of preliminary research. A draft sentence may be: "Despite considerable preliminary research,<reviews> there is insufficient evidence for use of T. versicolor or its extracts in clinical practice, and there are no prescription drugs derived from T. versicolor or approved by a national regulatory agency.<refs> Now that this discussion is open for input by other editors, we should wait for further feedback to establish WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't proceed as we have reached consensus on the sourcing with the 3 aforementioned sources and I have shown that I am willing to work with you vs against you. Do you disagree that a consensus on those 3 sources has been reached? This talk page has very little participation so waiting will likely only delay improving the article. I just ask that you have patience and keep WP:ROWN in mind, especially section 1 and 4. DrGvago (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please write your draft sentence and show references by the first author name from sources above. There is some evidence that PSK has approval as an adjunct therapy in Japan, but I haven't found the official source (only this.) Also, Chinese literature indicates drug approval of PS, but regulatory sources from within China are not transparent and some of these overlap with TCM, which we should not cite. This part of the draft seems generally true: "Despite considerable preliminary research,<reviews> there is insufficient evidence for use of T. versicolor or its extracts in conventional clinical practice.(NCI ref)" Zefr (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is perhaps too much focus on debunking previous claims for potential uses from what I am seeing in your responses. The heading also includes research, and NPOV should include that research and offer a short summary, while not making any claims for approved medical use. The research is fact. It has happened. Perhaps a better way to approach this is to separate medicinal uses from research? Suppressing the research, even if older, does a disservice to the reader, as long as it is not touted as a treatment or cure. DrGvago (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have done extensive reading of the sources agreed upon and a few supporting use in veterinary medicine and updated the article. Please feel free to provide constructive feedback here, or edits to the article that help to improve it. DrGvago (talk)

Likewise for confirming the sources, I made this edit as a compromise. The vet medicine sources are very weak, and not consistent with peer-reviewed MEDRS-quality reviews, so are not usable. No TCM source is reliable, so we should only refer to its practice without giving details of the quackery. I added the FDA warnings for perspective because - other than in China and Japan - there appears to be no acceptance in conventional clinical practice of PSK as a possible drug, which is what the Wikipedia article should reflect. Zefr (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your removal of much of the content included text from the agreed upon sources, almost verbatim. Further, if the source of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is appropriate, how is not VCA, a well known Veterinary hospital? I don't wish to start an edit war so perhaps it is time to seek additional input. DrGvago (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• @DrGvago: it would be helpful if you could set out here what extra text you think should be in the article. I have to say that I think Zefr's edits are (as usual in my experience) absolutely in line with WP:MEDRS as regards human medicine. The key principles that apply here are the need for systematic reviews to support medical use, and the importance of reporting traditional uses for which there are not acceptable sources to support efficacy in a way that does not imply efficacy. The case is sometimes made that we should report preliminary research under a "Research" heading, but the question then arises "why is this notable?" Preliminary research is just that, preliminary, and is therefore not encyclopedic. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Good day, and thank you for your input. The research as I added originally in veterinary medicine is substantially notable due to a drastic change in median survival times in a highly aggressive canine cancer with extremely poor prognosis. It is not a laboratory study, nor conducted by an unreliable quackery source. It has been published in mainstream media and in other journal, and was randomized, double blind. This is why this particular mushroom's research and evidence of use is notable in veterinary medicine. One must also consider that veterinary oncology is not as widely practiced as human oncology, there are less specialty centers, and so the sources should be evaluated understanding the limitations. veterinary hospitals stating the use of the compound should be accepted as evidence of its use in veterinary medicine.

Here are some other sources to establish its notability in veterinary medicine.

ISBN 978-0323323512

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mushroom-compound-offers-hope-cancer-dogs-humans/story?id=20970708

https://www.rd.com/list/cancer-fighting-foods-for-dogs/

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/turkey-tail-mushroom

I also find the edits by Zefr to focus on the negative. For example, the removal of it being generally well tolerated, although mentioned in existing source for adverse effects and and the new one added by them, while describing only the adverse effects. A number of existing sources provide statements of promise due to research in some human Cancers, while not in others. Nothing works in all cancers, yet there have been positive results, and those are mentioned widely on Wiki. If this is the line of thinking, chemotherapy and surgical recision may as well be summarized as inconclusive and not further described. It does not do the reader service to remove these because it does not align with an opinion and lumping all of them into "cancer". If the sources are accepted, so should be their statements. DrGvago (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@DrGvago: If the sources are accepted, so should be their statements – absolutely. And for human medicine, the sources must meet WP:MEDRS. "Statements of promise due to research" are not acceptable, for very good reasons. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on veterinary medicine, but you undermine your position by seeming not to accept the need to follow MEDRS strictly. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not intend to be unaccepting, but rather wishing to learn. Here is one example:

I wrote: Some studies suggest it appears to improve survival rates in people with gastric cancer and colorectal cancers. However, clinical trials in people with breast cancer, leukemias, and liver cancer remain inconclusive as of 2021.

this is stated in the source as: When used as an adjuvant, PSK appears to improve survival rates in patients with gastric (1) (2) and colorectal (3) (4) (5) cancers. It may also benefit patients with esophageal cancer (27). One clinical study demonstrated that PSP used in conjunction with chemotherapy may benefit patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (6). Studies using Coriolus extract alone or in combination with other botanicals also suggest positive immunomodulatory effects (7) (8). However, studies on breast cancer (9), hepatocellular carcinoma (10) (28), and leukemia (11) produced mixed results. Although a meta-analysis suggests adjuvant Coriolus may lower mortality risk with some types of cancers (29), additional confirmatory studies are needed."

quote is from: https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/integrative-medicine/herbs/coriolus-versicolor

further supported by another source: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/mushrooms-pdq

I do not understand how that was inappropriate. I feel it not only accurately describes the conclusions, but is an almost identical (without copy paste) version of one of the sources. If the source is accepted, then how is this not appropriate under the heading of research? Apologies for the formatting. Mobile web editing is challenging. DrGvago (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Anti-cancer evidence

This revert was justified because there is no reputable review and no regulatory agency that acknowledge the mushroom itself, or the manufactured extract, PSK, as an anti-cancer or immune-enhancing compound. Such extraordinary claims require exceptionally strong sources, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, for which there is none - adhere to WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Journal Club

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xisune (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wampumce.

— Assignment last updated by Wampumce (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)