Mycology Fundamentals
13–41% total beta-glucan measured in mushroom fruiting bodies
Across eight wild-growing Polish species plus cultivated button mushroom, mean total beta-glucan ranged from 13.5 to 40.9 grams per 100 grams of dry mass. But only part of that total is the 1,3/1,6-linked fraction that immune receptors respond to — and the assay behind most label percentages never measures beta-glucan directly at all.
Mirończuk-Chodakowska et al., Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig, 2017; Sweeney et al., J AOAC Int, 2026
0.7–5.5%
alpha-glucan measured in Lion's Mane and Shiitake fruiting bodies, against 13–26% beta-glucan in the same samples (Keerthana 2026)
40–54%
share of total beta-glucan that is actually 1,3/1,6-linked, even in the highest-scoring wild species (Mirończuk-Chodakowska 2017)
none
published experiments that grow one species both ways, separate the forms, and measure the same immune outcome in each
Mirończuk-Chodakowska et al., Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig, 2017; Sweeney et al., J AOAC Int, 2026
View as image ↗The fruiting body versus mycelium debate has been running in the mushroom supplement industry for at least a decade. Brand websites and YouTube channels have strong opinions, and most of them cite the same handful of papers.
What is missing from nearly every consumer-facing explanation is what those papers actually did. Read against their own abstracts, the picture is both more interesting and more honest than the marketing version: the compositional case for fruiting bodies is real and well measured, while the stronger biological claims that get stacked on top of it are not yet backed by the experiments people say they are.
This article covers the chemistry of glucan linkages, what the measurement on a label really represents, what the comparison literature genuinely found, and where the evidence runs out.
For the full overview of the debate including practical guidance for supplement buyers, see Fruiting Body vs. Mycelium: The Great Mushroom Supplement Debate.
Key Takeaways
- Beta-glucans and alpha-glucans differ in how their glucose units are linked; mushroom cell walls are built from beta-glucans, while starch is an alpha-glucan, and standard testing does not cleanly separate them
- In directly measured fruiting bodies, beta-glucan dominates: Shiitake strains ran 13.4–26.2% beta-glucan against just 0.8–5.5% alpha-glucan, and Lion's Mane 17.4% against 0.673% (Keerthana et al. 2026)
- Total beta-glucan is not the same as the immunologically interesting fraction — even in the best wild species, only 40–54% of measured beta-glucan was 1,3/1,6-linked (Mirończuk-Chodakowska et al. 2017)
- The standard label assay calculates beta-glucan by subtraction rather than measuring it, and resistant starches, trehalose and maltitol interfere with that subtraction in ways that are matrix-dependent (Sweeney et al. 2026)
- Berger et al. 2022 found substrate chemistry, strain and developmental stage drive wide metabolite variation in both mycelium and fruiting bodies; its own conclusion is that industrially produced fungal biomass could be a safe, nutritious food
- No published study grows one species both ways, separates fruiting body from mycelium, and measures the same immune outcome in each — the head-to-head experiment the debate assumes has not been run
The Chemistry Distinction Nobody Explains: Beta-Glucan vs. Alpha-Glucan
The fruiting body versus mycelium argument is, underneath, a chemistry argument about two families of glucose polymer that can look similar in basic testing but behave differently in the body.
Glucose is a simple sugar. Long chains of glucose are polysaccharides. What a given polysaccharide does depends on how the glucose units are joined — the glycosidic linkage.
Beta-glucans in mushrooms carry beta-1,3 and beta-1,6 linkages. Timm and colleagues, reviewing mushroom beta-glucans in Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, describe them as components of the cell wall of basidiomycete fungi, recognised for their potential as immunostimulants and immunosuppressants.[1] Notably, that same review states these molecules can be extracted from the basidiocarp — the fruiting body — as well as from mycelium and its cultivation biomass. Beta-glucan is not exclusive to the fruiting body. The question has always been how much.
Alpha-glucans carry alpha-1,4 linkages. This is the architecture of starch and glycogen, the storage form of glucose in grain and in animals. It is a food, not an immune signal.
The quantities involved in a real mushroom are lopsided, and a 2026 comparative study put numbers on it. Keerthana and colleagues, writing in Natural Product Research, measured alpha-, beta- and total glucan separately in Lion's Mane and Shiitake fruiting bodies.[2] Shiitake strains ranged from 13.433% to 26.190% beta-glucan, against alpha-glucan of only 0.806% to 5.521%. Lion's Mane measured 17.442% beta-glucan against 0.673% alpha-glucan.
That is the baseline worth holding onto. In an actual fruiting body, alpha-glucan is a rounding error next to beta-glucan. Any product where the two approach parity is telling you something about its composition — and the most common reason for that shift is grain.
What a Fruiting Body Actually Contains — and the Fraction That Gets Overlooked
Direct measurement of wild mushrooms provides the reference range. Mirończuk-Chodakowska and colleagues analysed eight species of wild-growing edible Polish mushrooms plus cultivated Agaricus bisporus for comparison, using a colorimetric method for the 1,3-1,6-beta-D-glucan fraction.[5]
Mean total beta-glucan varied from 13.5 g/100 g dry mass in A. bisporus (portobello) to 40.9 g/100 g in Tricholomopsis rutilans. That is the headline range, and it is the one most often quoted.
The more useful finding is the one underneath it. Mean 1,3-1,6-beta-D-glucan content ranged from 3.9 g/100 g in A. bisporus (cremini) to 16.8 g/100 g in Auricularia auricula-judae. Expressed as a share of total beta-glucan, the best performers were Gyroporus cyanescens at 54%, Suillus granulatus at 49.8%, A. auricula-judae at 47.9% and Suillus variegatus at 40.6%.
In other words: even in the species that do best, roughly half of the measured beta-glucan is not the 1,3/1,6-linked form most associated with immune signalling. A "total beta-glucan" figure systematically flatters a product relative to what the immune-relevant chemistry would show.
A follow-up study from the same group broadened the sample to 18 wild species plus three commercial ones, and measured beta-glucan two different ways — the Megazyme method and the Congo red method.[6] The two disagreed substantially. By Megazyme, the highest mean was Tricholoma portentosum at 34.97 g/100 g. By Congo red, the leaders were entirely different species at roughly half those values — Lactarius deliciosus at 17.11 g/100 g and Suillus grevillei at 16.97 g/100 g.
That study also reported something that complicates the usual framing: assessed by the Megazyme method, beta-glucan in wild mushrooms was comparable to commercial cultivated mushrooms. Wild-harvested does not automatically mean richer.
The Measurement Problem: Why the Number on the Label Is a Remainder
The disagreement between two analytical methods on the same mushrooms is not a footnote. It is the core of why label claims are hard to trust.
Method · How the Label Number Is Produced
Beta-Glucan Is a Remainder, Not a Measurement
The standard enzymatic assay never measures beta-glucan directly. It measures two other things and subtracts. Each step carries its own error into the answer.
Total glucan
The sample is broken down by acid hydrolysis and the released glucose is measured. This captures every glucose polymer in the product at once — mushroom and grain alike.
Where it drifts: Glucose is not fully stable through hydrolysis. Systematic loss at this step pushes the total downward.
Alpha-glucan
A separate enzymatic step measures alpha-glucan — starch and glycogen — so it can be removed from the total.
Where it drifts: Resistant starches, trehalose and sugar alcohols such as maltitol interfere here. If alpha-glucan is under-measured, everything missed is handed to the beta-glucan figure.
Beta-glucan by subtraction
Beta-glucan is not measured directly. It is whatever is left after alpha-glucan is subtracted from total glucan.
Where it drifts: Because the result is a remainder, every error in steps 1 and 2 lands in the final number rather than cancelling out.
Why reagent specificity matters
Detection reagents differ in what they will bind. The recombinant recognition protein tested by Kanno and colleagues did not react to barley glucan, dextran, mannan, pustulan or xylan, and reacted most strongly to lentinan — the beta-glucan of shiitake.
Cereal beta-glucans are real beta-glucans, but their linkage pattern differs from the fungal 1,3/1,6 form. A method that cannot tell them apart cannot tell you how much of a number came from the mushroom.
What this does and does not mean
It does not mean every label is wrong by a known amount. Sweeney and colleagues describe the differences as matrix-dependent — the size and even the direction of the error depend on what else is in the capsule. It does mean a beta-glucan percentage is an estimate whose reliability falls as the formulation gets more complex, and that a “polysaccharide” percentage, which skips the subtraction entirely, tells you less still.
Sources: Sweeney et al. (2026), Journal of AOAC International [ref 3]; Kanno et al. (2020), International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms [ref 7].
Sweeney and colleagues, in the Journal of AOAC International, set out what the standard approach actually does.[3] The longstanding indirect method calculates beta-glucan by subtracting enzymatically measured alpha-glucan from total glucan obtained through acid hydrolysis. Beta-glucan is never measured directly; it is what is left over.
Their evaluation found this approach is increasingly challenged by modern supplement formulations containing resistant starches, trehalose, and sweeteners such as maltitol. They identified matrix-dependent limitations at several points: acid solubilisation, glucose stability during hydrolysis, alpha-glucan specificity, and formulation-derived interferences. Refining the workflow increased measured total glucan values, improved alpha-glucan determination in matrices containing those interfering compounds, and reduced systematic glucose loss during hydrolysis.
The honest reading is not "all labels overstate by X%." Sweeney and colleagues describe the differences from the conventional method as matrix-dependent — how far off a number is, and in which direction, depends on what else is in the product. What follows is narrower but still decisive: a beta-glucan percentage becomes less reliable as a formulation becomes more complex, and grain-based products are exactly the complex case, because resistant starch is precisely one of the named interferents.
Reagent specificity adds another layer. Kanno and colleagues developed a quantification method built on a recombinant beta-glucan recognition protein, supBGRP, and compared it against an existing assay using a beta-glucan antibody.[7] Their reagent did not react to barley glucan, dextran, mannan, pustulan or xylan, reacted to sonifilan, only slightly to curdlan, and was most reactive to lentinan — shiitake's beta-glucan. Against the alkaline-extracted fraction from Lentinus edodes, supBGRP was more reactive than the polyclonal antibody. The authors concluded supBGRP is superior to antibodies mainly for practical reasons: easier availability and greater stability as a reagent.
The detail worth pulling out is that barley glucan produced no reaction. Cereal beta-glucans are genuine beta-glucans, but their linkage pattern differs from the fungal 1,3/1,6 form, and a specific reagent can tell them apart. A method that cannot is a method that cannot tell you how much of a number came from the mushroom.
Mass spectrometry offers a different window. López-García and colleagues used MALDI-TOF to characterise the glucan profiles of five commercial mushroom supplements without any purification pre-treatment.[8] The profiles were qualitatively similar across species, showing sodium-adducted glucan cations consistent with a beta-(1→3)-glucan repeating unit. Differences emerged in molecular weight rather than in kind, with the highest values in the Maitake and Cordyceps preparations. It is a fast structural check, not a purity audit — it did not set out to quantify grain contamination, and it should not be cited as though it did.
What the Comparison Literature Actually Found
Berger and colleagues published the most frequently cited comparison of mycelium and fruiting bodies in Microorganisms in 2022.[4] It is worth being precise about what it is: a comparative review of published data on proteins, polysaccharides, smaller metabolites, metal ions and toxins across the three most popular species — Agaricus bisporus, Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinus edodes — and some closely related species. It is not a controlled experiment.
Berger, Bordewick, Krahe & Ersoy (2022) · Microorganisms
- Population
- Published metabolite data across Agaricus bisporus, Pleurotus ostreatus and Lentinus edodes
- Intervention
- Comparison of proteins, polysaccharides, smaller metabolites, metal ions and toxins between mycelia and fruiting bodies
- Comparator
- Literature values — no controlled head-to-head experiment
- Finding
- Large effects of substrate chemistry, strain, developmental stage and ecological interactions produce wide variation in metabolite concentrations in both mycelial cells and fruiting bodies.
mixed The review's own conclusion points toward mycelium: it argues fungal biomass produced under food-grade industrial conditions could supply a safe, nutritious meat substitute and high-value protein isolates.
Berger et al., Microorganisms, 2022 [ref 4]
The finding is genuinely useful, and it is not "fruiting body wins." It is that variation within each form is large — driven by substrate chemistry, strain, developmental stage and ecological interactions. A mycelium grown on an optimised liquid substrate under controlled conditions is not the same input as mycelium grown on grain. A fruiting body harvested at peak maturity is not the same as one harvested early.
It is also worth reporting where the paper lands, because it is routinely cited backwards. Berger and colleagues conclude that fungal biomass, produced under food-grade conditions at industrial scale, could provide a safe and nutritious meat substitute and protein isolates of high biological value. That is an argument for the potential of cultivated mycelial biomass. The problem this article is really about is not mycelium as a concept — it is the specific practice of drying and grinding a partially colonised grain block and selling the whole mass as mushroom.
Evidence Audit · What These Studies Actually Tested
The Three Papers Everyone Cites
Each of these is regularly presented as a head-to-head test of fruiting body against mycelium. Read against the source abstracts, none of them is one.
Berger et al. 2022
Microorganisms
What it is said to show
Proved fruiting bodies are the superior source of bioactive polysaccharides.
What it actually tested
A comparative review of published metabolite data across three species. Its own conclusion is that industrially produced fungal biomass could be a safe, nutritious food — pointing toward mycelium, not away from it.
Comparator: Literature values, not a controlled experiment
Case et al. 2024
Frontiers in Nutrition
What it is said to show
Showed fruiting body powder trains immune cells better than mycelium.
What it actually tested
Tested powdered forms of white button mushroom only. The trained-immunity response tracked the amount of available beta-glucan, and was modest next to the yeast-derived comparator.
Comparator: Yeast-derived beta-glucan — no mycelium arm
Lin et al. 2019
Nutrients
What it is said to show
Found fruiting body and mycelium of one species drive opposite immune responses.
What it actually tested
Tested a single commercial capsule containing fruiting body extract and cultivated mycelia together, given orally to mice. The forms were combined in one product, never separated.
Comparator: Untreated mice — the two forms were never compared
The gap this leaves
Across these three references there is no experiment that grows one species both ways, separates the two forms, and measures the same immune outcome in each. The chemical case for fruiting bodies — that they carry more beta-glucan per gram than a grain-and-mycelium blend — rests on composition data, which is solid. The stronger claim, that the two forms produce different or opposite biological effects, does not yet have a study behind it.
Sources: Berger et al. (2022) [ref 4]; Case et al. (2024) [ref 11]; Lin et al. (2019) [ref 12]. Study designs described as stated in each published abstract.
Claim Check
Does the research show fruiting bodies beat mycelium?
The claim
“Peer-reviewed studies have compared fruiting body against mycelium head-to-head and shown fruiting body is biologically superior.”
Supplement marketing and review videos citing Berger 2022, Case 2024 and Lin 2019 as if each were a controlled comparison.
What research shows
OverstatedNone of the three papers ran that experiment. Berger 2022 is a comparative review of published data. Case 2024 tested only button mushroom powder against a yeast beta-glucan comparator, with no mycelium arm. Lin 2019 tested a single capsule containing fruiting body extract and mycelia combined.
The compositional argument still stands on its own: fruiting bodies measure high in beta-glucan and very low in alpha-glucan, while a grain-and-mycelium powder necessarily carries the grain's starch into the final product. That is a real and quantified difference. What is missing is evidence that the two forms differ in kind rather than in concentration.
Berger et al. 2022 [ref 4]; Case et al. 2024 [ref 11]; Lin et al. 2019 [ref 12]
Why Culture Conditions Matter as Much as Form: The Cordyceps Case
If Berger's central finding is that production conditions drive variation, Cordyceps militaris is where that has been documented in most detail. Park's 2025 review in Foods synthesises how cultivation conditions govern the compounds people buy Cordyceps for.[9]
The review covers nutritional factors — carbon and nitrogen sources, their ratios, and trace elements — alongside environmental parameters including oxygen availability, pH, temperature and light. It compares solid-state fermentation using grains, insects and agro-industrial residues against liquid-state fermentation in submerged and surface cultures, examining each for mycelial growth, fruiting body formation and secondary metabolite production. Mixed grain-insect substrates and light regulation are singled out as promising routes to greater cordycepin accumulation.
Park is equally clear about what is not settled, listing an incomplete understanding of metabolite regulatory networks, an absence of standardised cultivation protocols, and unresolved scale-up challenges including oxygen transfer, foam control and downstream processing.
That second gap deserves emphasis. Without standardised cultivation protocols, "Cordyceps militaris fruiting body" is not a fixed-composition ingredient the way vitamin C is. Its bioactive profile is a function of the whole production environment.
Liang and colleagues showed how large those swings get.[10] Testing brown rice, plumule rice, wheat and pearl barley — each supplemented with one of four nitrogen sources — against two C. militaris strains, they found the best substrate depended both on which compound you wanted and on which strain you were growing.
Cordycepin was the one consistent result: wheat plus monosodium glutamate produced the highest content in both strains, at 25.07 mg/g and 22.14 mg/g. Everything else diverged. Peak yield and biological efficiency came on pearl barley for one strain (25.16 g/bottle, 87.36%) but on brown rice plus peptone for the other (21.84 g/bottle, 75.83%). Peak mannitol came on plumule rice preparations for the first strain (153.21 mg/g) and pearl barley for the second (189.33 mg/g).
That is the practical warning inside the data. Two strains of one species, handed the same menu of substrates, do not respond the same way — so "grown on wheat" tells you much less than it sounds like it does.
The Cordyceps case also shows why the fruiting body versus mycelium dichotomy is a poor fit for some species. C. militaris forms genuine fruiting bodies directly on grain substrates. The form-based shorthand that works reasonably well elsewhere gives you very little here without knowing the specific production details.
The Immune Mechanism That Makes Concentration Matter
Composition only matters if concentration changes the biology. Case and colleagues provide the most direct evidence, in a 2024 Frontiers in Nutrition study of trained immunity.[11]
Trained immunity is a form of memory in innate immune cells. Unlike the adaptive immunity vaccines induce, it involves reprogramming macrophages so they respond faster and harder to later challenges.
Using various powdered forms of white button mushroom, the team found mouse macrophages pre-treated with whole mushroom powder showed enhanced responses on restimulation, and were particularly sensitive to TLR-2 stimulation. Two results matter for this debate, and the second is usually dropped.
First, the trained response correlated with the amount of available beta-glucan in the powder. Enriching beta-glucan content — by simulated in-vitro digestion, or by chemical fractionation — retained and boosted the trained response respectively. Concentration is doing real work.
Second, that response was modest compared with the training observed using yeast-derived beta-glucans. Mushroom beta-glucan trains innate immune cells, but it was not the strongest trainer in its own experiment.
The team confirmed the effect was not confined to a dish: both whole and digested preparations trained human monocytes, and mice given whole mushroom powder by oral gavage showed shifts in bone-marrow progenitor populations toward myeloid-committed cells, with derived macrophages again showing enhanced restimulation responses.
This is the strongest available support for the concentration argument. If grain starch dilutes beta-glucan, it reduces the input that the trained response tracks. That is a defensible inference from Case's data — and it is a claim about concentration, not about the fruiting body being a categorically different substance.
The Study That Is Not the Comparison It Is Said to Be
One paper deserves direct correction, because it circulates widely as proof that the two forms have opposite effects.
Lin and colleagues studied Taiwanofungus camphoratus — the mushroom also known as Antrodia cinnamomea — in Nutrients in 2019.[12] The material tested was a commercial capsule product composed of fruiting body extract and solid-state-cultivated mycelia of T. camphoratus — the two forms combined in a single preparation.
It was an in vivo study. The capsule was administered orally to BALB/c mice for six weeks in a non-specific immune arm, and for eight weeks with ovalbumin immunisation in a specific immune arm. The product increased the growth of splenic immune cells and enhanced macrophage and natural killer cell activity. It raised IL-2, IFN-γ, serum IgG and OVA-IgG, and lowered IL-4, IL-5, TNF-α, serum IgE and OVA-IgE. The authors concluded the product possesses immunomodulatory activity.
What the study did not do: separate the two forms, compare them against each other, or measure IL-1β. There is no opposite-effects finding in it. The claim that fruiting body and mycelium of this species drive divergent IL-1β responses does not come from this paper, and we could not locate a peer-reviewed source that supports it.
Research Gap
What would it take?
What would settle whether fruiting body and mycelium differ biologically, not just in concentration?
One species, grown both ways, forms kept separate
Every commonly cited paper either reviews existing data, tests one form only, or tests the two combined in a single product.
Matched beta-glucan dose across arms
Without dose-matching, any difference could simply be the concentration effect Case et al. already demonstrated rather than a difference in kind.
Standardised cultivation protocols
Park's 2025 review names the absence of these as an open problem — without them, two batches of the same form are not comparable inputs.
Composition data for both forms
Glucan measurement in fruiting bodies is well developed; equivalent published data for commercial grain-grown mycelium products is thin.
Human outcomes rather than cell or rodent endpoints
Case et al. reached human monocytes in vitro and mouse progenitors in vivo — a meaningful step, but not a clinical endpoint.
Berger et al. 2022 [ref 4]; Park 2025 [ref 9]; Case et al. 2024 [ref 11]; Lin et al. 2019 [ref 12]
- Cell studiescompleted
Beta-glucan concentration tracks trained immunity induction in mouse macrophages and human monocytes (Case et al. 2024).
- Animal studiescurrent
Oral whole mushroom powder shifts bone-marrow progenitor populations in mice; combined-form products show immunomodulatory activity in mice.
- Case reportsmissing
No published clinical reports comparing the two forms.
- Small human trialsmissing
No head-to-head human trial of fruiting body versus mycelium exists.
- Large randomised trialsmissing
- Meta-analysismissing
The compositional claim — that fruiting bodies carry more beta-glucan per gram than a grain-and-mycelium powder — is well supported by direct measurement. The biological claim that this translates into a meaningfully different health outcome in people rests on cell and rodent work, with no head-to-head human comparison at any level.
Case et al. 2024 [ref 11]; Lin et al. 2019 [ref 12]; Keerthana et al. 2026 [ref 2]
Where This Leaves the Debate
The chemistry is settled and it favours fruiting bodies on composition. Beta-glucan dominates alpha-glucan in a real fruiting body by a wide margin, and a product built from grain plus partial colonisation necessarily carries starch that a fruiting body does not. Concentration tracks at least one measurable immune mechanism.
What is not settled is everything past that point. The measurement that would let you verify any of it on a shelf is a subtraction with known interference from precisely the compounds grain contributes. The head-to-head experiment does not exist. And the most-cited evidence for a categorical difference between the two forms turns out, on reading, not to be about that at all.
The full picture of how these differences play out in specific products is covered in Full-Spectrum Mushroom Products: Fruiting Body + Mycelium? and Do Fruiting Bodies Have More Bioactive Compounds Than Mycelium?. For spotting mycelium-on-grain products on store shelves, see Mycelium on Grain: Why It's Controversial in the Supplement Industry. And for how growing substrate alters medicinal properties, see How Growing Substrate Affects Mushroom Bioactive Content.
The Bottom Line
The fruiting body versus mycelium debate rests on a chemistry question with a clear answer and a biology question without one. Beta-glucans carry beta-1,3 and beta-1,6 linkages and form mushroom cell walls; alpha-glucans are starch. In directly measured fruiting bodies the gap is stark — Shiitake at 13.4–26.2% beta-glucan against 0.8–5.5% alpha-glucan (Keerthana et al. 2026). But total beta-glucan overstates the immune-relevant fraction, which reached only 40–54% of the total even in the best wild species (Mirończuk-Chodakowska et al. 2017), and the standard label assay calculates beta-glucan by subtraction, with resistant starches and sugar alcohols interfering in matrix-dependent ways (Sweeney et al. 2026). Berger et al. 2022 found substrate, strain and developmental stage drive wide variation in both forms, and concluded that industrially produced fungal biomass could be a safe and nutritious food. Case et al. 2024 showed trained immunity tracks beta-glucan concentration, though mushroom powder trained more weakly than yeast beta-glucan. No published study grows one species both ways, separates the forms, and measures the same outcome in each — the comparison the debate assumes has not been run.
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources & References
- 1RTHM-00854·Timm, Thaynã Gonçalves et al. (2023). “Mushroom β-glucans: application and innovation for food industry and immunotherapy..” Applied microbiology and biotechnology.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 2RTHM-02459·Keerthana, C S et al. (2026). “Unveiling the glucan profile: a comparative study of Lion's Mane and Shiitake mushrooms..” Natural product research.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 3RTHM-02458·Sweeney, Lucie C et al. (2026). “Advances in Enzymatic Measurement of β-Glucan in Mushrooms, Yeast, Algae, and Dietary Supplements..” Journal of AOAC International.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 4RTHM-00743·Berger, Ralf G et al. (2022). “Mycelium vs. Fruiting Bodies of Edible Fungi-A Comparison of Metabolites..” Microorganisms.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 5RTHM-00484·Mirończuk-Chodakowska, Iwona et al. (2017). “Quantitative evaluation of 1,3,1,6 β-D-glucan contents in wild-growing species of edible Polish mushrooms..” Roczniki Panstwowego Zakladu Higieny.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 6RTHM-00637·Mirończuk-Chodakowska, Iwona et al. (2020). “Evaluation of Polish wild Mushrooms as Beta-Glucan Sources..” International journal of environmental research and public health.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 7RTHM-00625·Kanno, Takashi et al. (2020). “Quantification of β-Glucan from Culinary-Medicinal Mushrooms Using Novel Artificial β-Glucan Recognition Protein..” International journal of medicinal mushrooms.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 8RTHM-00437·López-García, Marta et al. (2016). “MALDI-TOF to compare polysaccharide profiles from commercial health supplements of different mushroom species..” Food chemistry.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 9RTHM-02159·Park, Hye-Jin (2025). “Influence of Culture Conditions on Bioactive Compounds in Cordyceps militaris: A Comprehensive Review..” Foods (Basel.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 10RTHM-00617·Liang, Zeng-Chin et al. (2014). “Various grain substrates for the production of fruiting bodies and bioactive compounds of the medicinal caterpillar mushroom, Cordyceps militaris (Ascomycetes)..” International journal of medicinal mushrooms.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 11RTHM-00867·Case, Sarah et al. (2024). “β-glucans from Agaricus bisporus mushroom products drive Trained Immunity..” Frontiers in nutrition.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩
- 12RTHM-00572·Lin, Liang-Hung et al. (2019). “Immunomodulatory Effects of Fruiting Body Extract and Solid-State-Cultivated Mycelia of Taiwanofungus camphoratus..” Nutrients.Study breakdown →PubMed →↩