Sanghuang vs. Meshima: Different Species, Different Research

Emerging and Specialty Mushrooms

50 studies published under the name Phellinus linteus — a binomial that 2016 taxonomy reassigned, and that Korea's registered sanghuang cultivars do not actually match

Most English-language anti-cancer research on sanghuang was published under the name Phellinus linteus, sold in Japan as Meshima. In 2016 that name was moved to a new genus, and a phylogeny of 74 strains found Korea's registered sanghuang cultivars group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang instead. The label, the research nameplate, and the organism can be three different things.

Han et al., Journal of Microbiology, 2016

Meshima

Japanese trade name for Phellinus linteus, now Tropicoporus linteus

桑黄

Chinese sanghuang, referring to mulberry-associated Sanghuangporus species

2016

year Sanghuangporus and Tropicoporus were split out of the Inonotus linteus complex

Han et al., Journal of Microbiology, 2016

View as image ↗

Search for "sanghuang mushroom" and "meshima mushroom" on any supplement site and you will find the terms used interchangeably. They are not the same thing — and the reason is more interesting than a simple mix-up of two species.

There are three separate things at play, and most write-ups collapse them into one. There is the name printed on a jar. There is the binomial the research was published under. And there is the organism that was actually grown. A 2016 phylogenetic study of 74 strains found that in Korea — the country whose research made this mushroom famous — those three things do not line up.^[1]

Sanghuang sits within the broader "Emerging and Specialty Mushrooms" category. For context on how lesser-known medicinal mushrooms with strong traditional histories are being validated scientifically, see What Is Agarikon?.

Two Names, One Confusion: Why Sanghuang and Meshima Get Mixed Up

The confusion has cultural roots. In East Asian medicine, the name "sanghuang" (桑黄, "sahng-hwong" in Korean, "sahng-huáng" in Mandarin) has been used for centuries to describe yellow-brown bracket fungi with medicinal reputations. Like many traditional plant and fungus names, it was applied on appearance, habitat, and use rather than on taxonomic precision. It was never a species name. It was a category.

Korea and China developed regional traditions around different members of that category. Japan, drawing on Korean cultivation, imported the mushroom and marketed it as meshimakobu (メシマコブ), usually shortened to "Meshima" or "Mesima" in English. The name is geographic, not descriptive: Meshima is an island in the Gotō archipelago off Nagasaki where the fungus was found growing on mulberry, and kobu means a lump or knob, describing the bracket's form. It is a place-and-shape name that became a brand.

China's sanghuang tradition centred specifically on fungi growing on mulberry (桑, sang = mulberry; 黄, huang = yellow). Those mulberry-associated species now sit in the genus Sanghuangporus, and carry the cultural prestige of the mulberry tree, central to Chinese sericulture and traditional medicine for millennia.

Label → Taxon → Evidence

What Each “Sanghuang” Name Actually Refers To

A supplement label, a research nameplate, and an accepted species name are three different things. Reading each row left to right shows where they line up and where they come apart. The second row is the one that surprises people: the cultivars Korea registers and sells as sanghuang group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang, while the Korean research program that made the mushroom famous is published under Phellinus linteus.

Name you encounter

Accepted taxon (post-2016)

What research exists under it

Meshimaメシマコブ

Japanese supplement trade name

Tropicoporus linteus

formerly Phellinus linteus

50 indexed studies, 1996–2024, nearly all published under the name "Phellinus linteus"[2]

Name tracks the research

Sanghuang상황

Korean registered cultivars

Sanghuangporus sanghuang

per phylogeny of 74 strains

Cultivated material groups with S. sanghuang — not with the P. linteus nameplate the research carries[1]

Name and material diverge

Sanghuang桑黄

Chinese traditional term

Sanghuangporus sanghuang

mulberry-associated

Exactly one indexed study published under a Sanghuangporus binomial[3]

Thin evidence base

Phellinus baumii

still printed on labels

Sanghuangporus baumii

recombined in 2016

Label name predates the 2016 genus split; no separate indexed cancer literature under the current binomial

Thin evidence base

Phellinus igniarius

label and older literature

Often Sanghuangporus vaninii

P. igniarius s.s. is a separate species

Name used loosely across two different organisms; check the strain, not the binomial

Name and material diverge

The practical consequence

A jar labelled only “sanghuang” tells you nothing about which of these organisms is inside. A jar labelled Phellinus linteus tells you which literature the seller is pointing at — but not, on its own, which species was grown. The only label that resolves the ambiguity is a current binomial plus a named strain.

Study counts are of this library’s indexed corpus, not of all literature worldwide — a substantial Chinese- and Korean-language body of work sits outside English-language indexing. Nothing in this map is a claim that any of these mushrooms treats disease.

Taxonomy per Zhou et al., Fungal Diversity, 2016; rows from refs [1]–[3]

The Species Behind the Research: A Name That Moved

When you read English-language research on this mushroom's anti-cancer properties, the binomial on the paper is almost always Phellinus linteus. A 2010 review by Sliva in Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine synthesised that body of work.^[2] It described immunomodulatory and direct antitumor activity, attributed activity to polysaccharides, their peptide and protein complexes, and lower-molecular-weight constituents, and reported effects on genes governing proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, and invasive behaviour. It also noted tumour regression in three independent case reports — the strongest human signal in the review, and also the weakest kind of evidence, since case reports have no control group.

This library indexes 50 studies under the Phellinus linteus nameplate, the earliest from 1996 and the most recent from 2024. Korean researchers produced a large share of them, and the research infrastructure around the species is genuinely substantial: decades of cultivation expertise, standardised extraction methods, and consistent compound profiling.

Two compound classes carry most of the mechanistic work. Polysaccharides, including protein-bound polysaccharides, act largely through immune activation. Small phenolics — hispolon and hispidin — show more direct cytotoxic activity in cell models. Those compound-level details are covered in Sanghuang: Korea and China's Prized Anti-Cancer Mushroom and Its Hispidin Content.

Here is the wrinkle. In 2016, Zhou and colleagues published a global revision of the Inonotus linteus complex in Fungal Diversity (77:335–347), erecting two new genera. Ten species moved into Sanghuangporus, seven into Tropicoporus, and Phellinus linteus itself became Tropicoporus linteus. Every one of those 50 papers was published under a binomial that no longer points where it used to.

The 2016 Species-Identity Paper: Why the Korean Material Matters

The critical document for understanding the sanghuang naming problem is a 2016 paper by Han and colleagues in the Journal of Microbiology, titled "Species identity of Phellinus linteus (sanghuang) extensively used as a medicinal mushroom in Korea."^[1]

The authors asked a deceptively simple question: what species are Korean producers actually cultivating when they sell "sanghuang"? They ran a phylogenetic analysis of 74 strains from the P. linteus–baumii complex using ITS ribosomal DNA sequences, including the parental strains of sanghuang varieties formally registered with the Korea Seed & Variety Service.

The answer was not the expected one. Those registered cultivars — ASI 26046 (Corea sanghuang), 26114 (Boolro) and 26115 (HK 1-ho) — grouped with Sanghuangporus sanghuang rather than with Phellinus linteus.

The paper that reframes the whole category

Han et al. (2016) · Journal of Microbiology

Population

74 strains from the Phellinus linteus–baumii complex, including parental strains of sanghuang varieties registered with the Korea Seed & Variety Service

Intervention

Phylogenetic analysis of ITS nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences

Comparator

Reference sequences across the allied species in the complex

Finding

The registered Korean sanghuang cultivars — ASI 26046 (Corea sanghuang), 26114 (Boolro) and 26115 (HK 1-ho) — grouped with Sanghuangporus sanghuang, not with Phellinus linteus, despite the Korean research and supplement trade using the P. linteus name.

narrow-scope This is a nomenclature and identity finding, not a biological-activity finding. It does not tell us that the extracts behave differently — only that we cannot assume the name on the paper describes the organism in the jar.

Han et al., Journal of Microbiology, 2016

This is not a pedantic naming quibble, and it is also not a reason to discard the literature. Distinct species can differ in polysaccharide structure, in hispidin and hispolon concentration, and in the ratio of bioactive compound classes. What the finding actually establishes is a limit on inference: you cannot assume that two papers sharing the binomial Phellinus linteus studied the same organism, and you cannot assume a Korean-grown "sanghuang" supplement matches the material in a given paper.

Naming

Sanghuang and meshima are the same mushroom

The claim

“Sanghuang and Meshima are two words for one mushroom, so all the research applies to both.”

Supplement listings use the terms interchangeably, and for decades the entire research literature was published under a single binomial — Phellinus linteus — which made the category look unified.

What research shows

Misleading

Meshima is a Japanese trade name for the mushroom published as Phellinus linteus, now Tropicoporus linteus. Chinese sanghuang refers to mulberry-associated Sanghuangporus species. And a 2016 phylogeny found Korea's registered sanghuang cultivars group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang rather than P. linteus.

This does not invalidate the research — the experiments found what they found. It means the name is an unreliable bridge between a paper and a product. A jar labelled only "sanghuang" could contain either lineage, and even a jar labelled "Phellinus linteus" may hold material that a modern phylogeny would place elsewhere.

Han et al., Journal of Microbiology, 2016; Zhou et al., Fungal Diversity, 2016

Chinese Sanghuang: Sanghuangporus and the Mulberry Tree

Sanghuangporus is the genus that carries the Chinese sanghuang tradition. It was erected in the 2016 revision described above, and its internal structure was worked out over the following years: a 2019 multi-locus phylogeny in Frontiers in Microbiology (10:812) recognised 13 species within the genus and supported it as monophyletic, also estimating a crown age of roughly 31 million years with an East Asian origin.

The research base under the Sanghuangporus name is far thinner than the P. linteus literature. This library indexes exactly one study published under a Sanghuangporus binomial: a 2023 paper in Nutrition Research and Practice testing a Sanghuangporus sanghuang alcohol extract against lung cancer cells.^[3] It reported reduced viability, migration and invasion in A549 and H1650 cells, a lowered Bcl-2/Bax ratio, reduced cyclin D1 and CDK4, and suppressed STAT3 — with the anti-proliferative effect reproduced in a xenograft mouse model.

That is a single preclinical study. It extends the evidence to the Chinese species in the sense that something was measured; it does not put Sanghuangporus anywhere near the depth of the P. linteus record. One caveat on the count: English-language indexing under-represents this field, and a substantial Chinese- and Korean-language literature on sanghuang sits outside it.

Chinese sanghuang also grows on a different substrate. The mulberry association is real and traditionally load-bearing, and the chemistry of mulberry wood differs from fig, oak, or other hosts. Whether that substrate difference produces meaningful differences in bioactive compound concentration has not been directly tested in a published head-to-head comparison — a genuine open question rather than a settled point in either direction.

The Reclassification Problem: How Naming Got More Complicated

How the Confusion Accumulated

Four Events That Detached the Name From the Organism

No single error created the sanghuang naming problem. A research literature settled on one binomial, taxonomy then moved that binomial into a different genus, a phylogeny found that the cultivated material was a third thing, and the supplement market never updated. The distance between the last two markers below is the gap a buyer is standing in.

1. 1996Literature

   The research program begins — under one name

   Indexed work on this mushroom starts appearing and, for the next twenty years, is published almost entirely under the binomial Phellinus linteus. Fifty studies in this library carry that nameplate.

2. 2016Taxonomy

   The genus splits in two

   Zhou and colleagues break the Inonotus linteus complex apart, erecting Sanghuangporus and Tropicoporus. Ten species move to Sanghuangporus, seven to Tropicoporus, and Phellinus linteus becomes Tropicoporus linteus.

3. 2016Taxonomy[1]

   Korea’s cultivars turn out to be something else

   A phylogeny of 74 strains finds that the sanghuang varieties formally registered in Korea — ASI 26046 (Corea sanghuang), 26114 (Boolro) and 26115 (HK 1-ho) — group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang rather than with Phellinus linteus.

4. 2019Taxonomy

   The new genus is filled in

   Multi-locus phylogenetic work recognises 13 species within Sanghuangporus and supports the genus as monophyletic, settling the shape of the group that Chinese sanghuang belongs to.

5. TodayMarketplace

   Labels are still one reclassification behind

   Products continue to read "Phellinus linteus", "Phellinus baumii", "Phellinus igniarius", or simply "sanghuang" — names that either predate the 2016 split or specify nothing at all.

A reclassification does not invalidate the research that preceded it. The 2016 split changed which name is correct, not what the experiments found. What it did change is the confidence with which a reader can assume that two papers sharing a binomial studied the same organism.

Zhou et al., Fungal Diversity, 2016; Han et al. [1]; Zhu et al., Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019

Most supplement labels have not kept pace. Products still say "Phellinus linteus" when they mean the mushroom now called Tropicoporus linteus, or "Phellinus baumii" for what is now placed in Sanghuangporus, or "Phellinus igniarius" — a name applied loosely in older and Chinese-language literature to material that often corresponds to Sanghuangporus vaninii, even though P. igniarius in the strict sense is a separate species entirely. The consumer-facing naming landscape is at least one reclassification cycle behind the literature.

For supplement buyers, that resolves to three cases:

"Phellinus linteus" or "Tropicoporus linteus" points at the mushroom the English-language research program was published under. It tells you which literature the seller is invoking. It does not, by itself, guarantee the cultivated strain matches the strains in those papers.

"Sanghuangporus sanghuang" or "Phellinus baumii" points at the Chinese mulberry-associated lineage — and, per the 2016 phylogeny, at what Korea's registered cultivars actually are. Smaller published evidence base in English.

"Sanghuang" with no binomial tells you nothing at all about which organism is in the jar.

What the Human Evidence Actually Shows

The article-level claim worth being precise about is how much human data exists, because this is where marketing tends to outrun the record.

Two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials by Ku and colleagues, both published in Medicine in 2022, tested P. linteus extract for immune function in healthy adults. The larger trial randomised 98 participants to 1,000 mg of extract or matched dextrin daily for eight weeks; natural killer cell activity, the primary outcome, rose significantly versus placebo, while the secondary cytokine and immunoglobulin outcomes showed non-significant trends.^[4] The earlier 30-participant pilot, testing 1,000 mg and 2,000 mg arms, reported that NK activity and IL-6 "tended to improve" — trends, not statistically significant differences.^[5] Neither trial reported extract-related adverse effects on liver or renal function.

Where this mushroom's evidence actually sits

1. Cell studiescompleted

   Extensive across both lineages — apoptosis, angiogenesis, invasion, and cell-cycle endpoints in breast, prostate, colon, liver and lung cancer lines.

2. Animal studiescompleted

   Multiple rodent models, including xenograft work for both Phellinus linteus and Sanghuangporus sanghuang extracts.

3. Case reportscompleted

   Three independent reports of tumour regression noted in the 2010 review — uncontrolled, and the weakest form of human evidence.

4. Small human trialscurrent

   Two randomised placebo-controlled trials (n=98 and n=30), both measuring immune function rather than cancer outcomes. One observational propensity-score-matched analysis in 217 pancreatic cancer patients.

5. Large RCTsmissing

   None. No adequately powered trial has tested this mushroom against a clinical disease endpoint.

6. Meta-analysesmissing

   None — there is no pool of comparable clinical trials to synthesise.

The preclinical base is broad and the mechanistic story is coherent, but human testing stops at two modest immune-function trials and one observational oncology analysis. Nothing here demonstrates that sanghuang or Meshima treats cancer in people.

Sliva, Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 2010; Ku et al., Medicine, 2022; Lee et al., Integrative Cancer Therapies, 2019

There is one further piece of human data, and it is frequently either ignored or overstated. A 2019 propensity-score-matched analysis in Integrative Cancer Therapies looked at 217 pancreatic cancer patients following curative resection.^[6] P. linteus use was the only significant predictor of completing adjuvant chemotherapy, and the P. linteus group had significantly better disease-free and overall survival. The authors' own reading is careful: the plausible mechanism is improved adherence to chemotherapy through lower treatment toxicity, not a direct anti-tumour effect. It is also a retrospective observational analysis, so unmeasured differences between patients who chose the supplement and those who did not remain a live alternative explanation.

What does not exist is a randomised trial testing either lineage as a cancer treatment.

Cancer care

Critical

This is a naming guide, not treatment guidance

Concern

Sanghuang and Meshima are marketed to people with cancer diagnoses, on the strength of cell and animal research plus a handful of uncontrolled case reports. No randomised trial has tested either lineage as a cancer treatment, and mushroom extracts can interact with chemotherapy and with drug-metabolising enzymes.

What the research says

Treat the research described here as biology, not as a treatment protocol. The one oncology dataset in humans is observational, and its authors attribute the survival difference to better chemotherapy adherence rather than to direct anti-tumour activity.

Particularly relevant for: Anyone undergoing cancer treatment, on immunosuppressants, or preparing for surgery

What to do

Discuss any mushroom supplement with your oncology team before starting it, and tell them the exact species and product. Nothing on this page is medical advice or a substitute for individualised clinical care.

Sliva, Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 2010; Lee et al., Integrative Cancer Therapies, 2019

Which Research Applies to Which Supplement

For readers trying to connect specific findings to specific products, the honest mapping is this.

The preclinical cancer literature — breast, prostate, colon, liver, lung, metastasis — was published under the Phellinus linteus name. If a product page cites Sliva and colleagues on breast cancer (AKT-pathway inhibition of growth, angiogenesis and invasion),^[7] Zhu and colleagues or Tsuji and colleagues on prostate cancer,^[8][9] or Li and colleagues on colon cancer (G2/M arrest and apoptosis in SW480 cells),^[10] those papers all carry the P. linteus nameplate. So do both Ku trials.

The Sanghuangporus research is a smaller and much more recent body of English-language work. It carries the weight of the Chinese traditional record and the biological rationale of the mulberry substrate, but its published preclinical base is a fraction of the P. linteus record and it has no clinical trials of its own.

For the detailed overview of what the cancer research actually shows, see Sanghuang and Cancer: Research on Phellinus igniarius. For the foundational overview of the sanghuang mushroom group, see What Is Sanghuang? Korea's Cancer-Fighting Mushroom. For the immune system evidence specifically, see Meshima and the Immune System.

The Bottom Line

Sanghuang and Meshima are not interchangeable, and the reason runs deeper than two species sharing a name. Meshima is a Japanese trade name for the mushroom published as Phellinus linteus — a binomial that Zhou and colleagues reassigned to Tropicoporus linteus when they split Sanghuangporus and Tropicoporus out of the Inonotus linteus complex in 2016. Chinese sanghuang refers to mulberry-associated Sanghuangporus species. And a 2016 phylogeny of 74 strains found that Korea's formally registered sanghuang cultivars group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang rather than with P. linteus, meaning the label, the research nameplate, and the cultivated organism can all be three different things. Nearly all English-language research — 50 indexed studies from 1996 to 2024 — carries the P. linteus name, while exactly one is published under a Sanghuangporus binomial. Human evidence stops at two randomised immune-function trials, only the larger of which met its primary endpoint, plus one observational analysis in pancreatic cancer patients whose authors attribute the survival difference to better chemotherapy adherence. No randomised trial has tested either lineage as a cancer treatment. A supplement labelled only "sanghuang" specifies nothing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between sanghuang and meshima?

Meshima is a Japanese supplement trade name — from meshimakobu, after Meshima island in the Gotō archipelago — for the bracket fungus published in the research literature as Phellinus linteus, reassigned in 2016 to Tropicoporus linteus. "Sanghuang" is a traditional East Asian category name rather than a species. Chinese sanghuang refers to mulberry-associated species now placed in Sanghuangporus. Complicating matters further, a 2016 phylogenetic study found that the sanghuang cultivars formally registered in Korea group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang rather than with P. linteus.

Are sanghuang and meshima the same mushroom?

Not reliably. Meshima corresponds to the mushroom published as Phellinus linteus. "Sanghuang" can refer to that organism, to Chinese mulberry-associated Sanghuangporus species, or to Korean registered cultivars that a 2016 phylogeny of 74 strains placed with Sanghuangporus sanghuang. Most English-language anti-cancer research carries the P. linteus nameplate, but the name alone does not guarantee which organism a given product contains.

Is Phellinus linteus the same as sanghuang?

It has been treated that way for decades, and that is precisely what the 2016 study in the Journal of Microbiology called into question. Han and colleagues analysed 74 strains and found the sanghuang varieties registered with the Korea Seed & Variety Service — ASI 26046, 26114 and 26115 — grouped with Sanghuangporus sanghuang rather than Phellinus linteus. Separately, the 2016 revision of the Inonotus linteus complex moved P. linteus itself to Tropicoporus linteus. So "Phellinus linteus" is best read as the historical nameplate on the research, not as a current, precise species identifier.

What is meshima mushroom good for?

The published research is mostly preclinical. Cell and animal studies report activity against breast, prostate, colon, liver and lung cancer models through apoptosis induction, angiogenesis inhibition, and effects on invasion. In humans, two randomised placebo-controlled trials by Ku and colleagues in 2022 tested immune function in healthy adults: the 98-participant trial found natural killer cell activity significantly improved versus placebo, while secondary cytokine and immunoglobulin outcomes did not reach significance, and the 30-participant pilot found trends only. No randomised trial has tested it as a cancer treatment. This is not medical advice — talk to your clinician, particularly if you are in cancer treatment.

How do Korean and Chinese sanghuang differ?

Traditionally, Chinese sanghuang is defined by its mulberry substrate, which is the origin of the name (桑 = mulberry, 黄 = yellow), while Korean sanghuang grew on mulberry, fig and other hosts. Taxonomically the picture is less tidy than the traditions suggest: the 2016 phylogeny found Korea's registered cultivars group with Sanghuangporus sanghuang — the same species associated with the Chinese tradition — even though Korean research is published under Phellinus linteus. Whether substrate differences translate into meaningful differences in bioactive compound concentration has not been tested in a published head-to-head comparison.

Which is more studied: sanghuang or meshima?

By English-language publication count, the Phellinus linteus nameplate dominates: this library indexes 50 studies under it, from 1996 to 2024, versus exactly one published under a Sanghuangporus binomial. That gap partly reflects indexing rather than research effort, since a substantial Chinese- and Korean-language literature on sanghuang is not captured in English-language databases. It also does not settle which organism was studied, since the 2016 findings showed the nameplate and the cultivated material can diverge.

Sources & References

1. 1RTHM-00783·Han, Jae-Gu et al. (2016). “Species identity of Phellinus linteus (sanghuang) extensively used as a medicinal mushroom in Korea..” Journal of microbiology (Seoul.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
2. 2RTHM-00364·Sliva, Daniel (2010). “Medicinal mushroom Phellinus linteus as an alternative cancer therapy..” Experimental and therapeutic medicine.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
3. 3RTHM-01817·Wang, Weike et al. (2023). “Sanghuangporus sanghuang extract inhibits the proliferation and invasion of lung cancer cells in vitro and in vivo..” Nutrition research and practice.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
4. 4RTHM-01556·Ku, Yong Ho et al. (2022). “Effects of Phellinus linteus extract on immunity improvement: A CONSORT-randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial..” Medicine.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
5. 5RTHM-01555·Ku, Yong Ho et al. (2022). “Efficacy of Phellinus linteus extract on immunity enhancement: A CONSORT-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial..” Medicine.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
6. 6RTHM-01082·Lee, Sung Hwan et al. (2019). “Potential Impact of Phellinus linteus on Adherence to Adjuvant Treatment After Curative Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Outcomes of a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis..” Integrative cancer therapies.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
7. 7RTHM-00271·Sliva, D et al. (2008). “Phellinus linteus Extract in Breast-Cancer Cell Models: What This 2008 Study Actually Found.” British journal of cancer.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
8. 8RTHM-00240·Zhu, T et al. (2007). “Phellinus linteus activates different pathways to induce apoptosis in prostate cancer cells..” British journal of cancer.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
9. 9RTHM-00367·Tsuji, Takanori et al. (2010). “Phellinus linteus extract sensitizes advanced prostate cancer cells to apoptosis in athymic nude mice..” PloS one.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
10. 10RTHM-00140·Li, Ge et al. (2004). “Protein-bound polysaccharide from Phellinus linteus induces G2/M phase arrest and apoptosis in SW480 human colon cancer cells..” Cancer letters.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩