A comparative study of the antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Inonotus hispidus fruit and their mycelia extracts

Figures & data

Figure 3. MS/MS spectrum and the fragmentation pattern of lauramidopropyl betaine

Figure 4. MS/MS spectrum and fragmentation pattern of 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde

Figure 5. MS/MS spectrum and fragmentation pattern of uplandicine

Table 1. Data from the MS/MS spectrum of identified compounds present in the culture mycelia

Compound	Characteristic fragment	Accurate mass (m/z)	Exact mass (m/z)	Error (ppm)
N-Butylbenzenesulfonamide	C6H8NO2S^+	158.0266	158.0270	−2.53
Lauramidopropyl betaine	C15H29NO^+	240.2316	240.2322	−2.50
3,5-di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde	C11H15O2^+	179.1067	179.1067	0.00
Uplandicine	C14H22NO6^+	300.1451	300.1442	−3.00
	C11H17O5^+	229.1081	229.1071	−4.36

Table 2. Content of total phenolics (TCP) and DPPH assay of methanol extracts of I. ispidus.

Fungal material	TPC µmol GAE/g extract (mean±SD)	DPPH IC50 mg mL^−1 (mean±SD)
Mycelia	1045.7 ± 97.4	0.064 ± 0.007
Fruiting bodies	919.3 ± 76.6	0.082 ± 0.011

Table 3. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Inonotus hispidus methanol extracts and ciprofloxacin towards selected Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria

		Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)
Gram staining	Microrganism (strain)	Mycelia [mg (d.w.) extract mL^−1]*	Fruiting bodies [mg (d.w.) extract mL^−1]*	Ciprofloxacin (μg mL^−1)**
Gram +	Bacillus cereus (ATCC 12826)	0.32 (0.40 ˗ 0.20)	0.17 (0.27 ˗ 0.14)	<0.12
	Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538)	1.01 (1.61 ˗ 0.80)	0.17 (0.27 ˗ 0.14)	0.62 (0.98 ˗ 0.49)
	Enterococcus faecalis (clinical isolate)	0.64 (0.80 ˗ 0.40)	0.17 (0.27 ˗ 0.14)	4.92 (7.81 ˗ 3.91)
Gram ˗	Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536)	1.28 (1.61 ˗ 0.80)	0.68 (1.08 ˗ 0.54)	<0.12
	Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15442)	2.03 (3.22 ˗ 1.61)	0.86 (1.08 ˗ 0.54)	1.23 (1.95 ˗ 0.98)
	Salmonella typhi (clinical isolate)	2.03 (3.22 ˗ 1.61)	0.86 (1.08 ˗ 0.54)	0.38 (0.49 ˗ 0.24)

*MIC values are reported as geometric means of three independent replicates (n = 3); MIC ranges are reported within brackets.

**MIC values and ranges for ciprofloxacin are expressed as μg mL⁻¹. In case no growth was observed at the lowest concentration tested; MIC values are reported as < [lowest concentration tested].

Table 4. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of I. hispidus methanol extracts and fluconazole towards selected yeast and filamentous fungal strains

	Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)
Microrganism (strain)	Mycelia [mg (d.w.) extract mL^−1]*	Fruiting bodies [mg (d.w.) extract mL^−1]*	Fluconazole (μg mL^−1)**
Candida albicans (YEPGA 6183)	2.56 (3.22 ˗ 1.61)	1.71 (2.16 ˗ 1.08)	2
Candida tropicalis (YEPGA 6184)	2.03 (3.22 ˗ 1.61)	0.86 (1.08 ˗ 0.54)	4
Candida parapsilosis (ATCC)	2.03 (3.22 ˗ 1.61)	0.68 (1.08 ˗ 0.54)	2
A. tubingensis (PeruMycA 21)	2.56 (3.22–1.61)	1.71(2.16 ˗ 1.08)	>16
A. minutus (PeruMycA 22)	1.01 (1.61–0.805)	0.68 (1.08–0.54)	>16

* MIC values are reported as geometric means of three independent replicates (n = 3); MIC ranges are reported within brackets. **MIC values and ranges for fluconazole are expressed as μg mL⁻¹.

Figure 1. Phylogenetic dendrogram obtained by Neighbor-Joining (NJ) from the ITS rDNA alignment of a selected Inonotus hispidus dataset. Values from 1000 bootstrap replicates are reported on branches. Only accessions reporting the respective geographic origins were entered in the dataset

Figure 2. MS/MS spectrum and fragmentation pattern of N-butylbenzenesulfonamide