The Purpose of Psilocybine in Nature?

[MurphyClox]

In my thinking, everything in nature has a purpose. There is absolutely nothing that doesn't serve some kind of 'meaningful' task. And if science doesn't know the purpose, it just wasn't discovered yet. The justification for this rule is directly derived from Darwin's theory of evolution (any creationist is requested to stay fucking quiet).
The only 2 exceptions from the above rule are IMO:

- 'Inventions' of nature that are comparably new and 'senseless', and were just not wiped out yet (everything needs some time to establish itself...or not). Mutations are the cause for constant changes in the genome (and therefore the appearance), and every new 'invention' has to be 'field-tested'...

- 'Inventions' of nature that were meaningful once, then lost their significance but were not completely wiped out yet. Example: The appendix in humans, or nipples with men.

Ok, I made my point. Now my question:

What is the purpose of psilocybine/psilocine in nature?

The first possible answer that comes to my mind is: It serves as a repellent for feeding predators (like snails, bugs, maggots, etc...). Or maybe it serves as some kinda antibiotic against pathogenic organisms that infect Psilocybe-species. Both sound reasonable somehow, but unfortunately I cannot back up any of these assumptions with a reference. Therefore, I request anybody how is willing to answer, to please provide a source.

Thanks for any constructive contribution to come.

Murphy Clox

 

[hamhurricane]

i was considering this as well, it has been suggested that a number of psychoactive alkaloids serve to protect the plant/organism from UV light, THC is one, the mycologist behind the "PF" business did some interesting experiments growing mushrooms under UV light, he found that it caused a series of mutations the most notable of which were albino mushrooms. some of the mushrooms were effected morphologically, others only had altered pigmentation, i believe the albinos often had no morphological changes as well as unaltered potency, whereas the mushrooms with decreased potency had pronounced morphological changes. there are indole based compounds found in yeasts and bacteria which serve as protection from UV light. perhaps the psilocybin serves as a fungal sunscreen.

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:12029500

 

[MurphyClox]

Yo Hamhurricane, that's absolutely wonderful!. Thank you so much!!

I was prepared for practically any answer but, honestly said, I wished to hear exactly this. I followed your link and although I don't have free access from my home PC to the mentioned journal (1st one), I found the corresponding diss-thesis online.

In the publication, the author deals in particular with Pityriacitrin:


Similarity to psilocybine is obvious...

- Murphy

Edit:

i was considering this as well, it has been suggested that a number of psychoactive alkaloids serve to protect the plant/organism from UV light, THC is one, the mycologist behind the "PF" business did some interesting experiments growing mushrooms under UV light...etc.

Can you point to some backup-info on said UV-irradiation experiments, please?

 

[Hammilton]

I doubt references for any of this will be available. I can't find anything, though I have 25mph winds and it's 10F outside, so I didn't search too long.

Anyway...

I don't think we can take the negative effects of the little brown mushrooms seperately. Very few species will be capable of telling the LBMs apart. Eating LBMs may produce a variety of effects- a satisfying meal, a psychedelic experience, a night of bloody vomiting and diarrhea to death. Since sight is almost entirely useless in telling them apart, smell and taste are all you've got. Some species may indeed be capable of telling the difference via scent, but tasting them is a dangerous method to tell them apart (if it'd be effective at all). So, for the most part, few animals will be capable of discriminating between safe and dangerous LBMs.

Thus, I think we would really have to take them as a group. Maybe all of this is entirely wrong, it may be, maybe they can all tell the difference.

I think that the defense mechanism of one species of LBM likely protects them all. As such, I don't see why the least effective of them all would have been retained. If indeed it has been retained and isn't a temporary thing.

I consider psilocybin the least effective because of the following:
a. It has a long onset
1. As a result, it requires the ingestee to figure out what the cause of the experience was. An animal eating various plants would have a difficult time figuring it out.
b. It isn't inherently harmful - it may be unpleasant, but generally, it doesn't cause pain or distress. I don't know that lower species are capable of panic attacks, but that seems to be the only way they cause real distress.


I also don't like the idea that it's there as a benefit because humans like it, the way that dronabinol in Cannabis or Morphine in P. somniferum has been (smartly) thought to have developed. This is an idea I see brought up repeatedly that just doesn't make sense; it's in species in areas with no history of human use.

Perhaps it is some sort of antibiotic, that seems possible. What sorts of pathogens infect mushrooms in general and psilocybes in particular?

I brought up the idea that it's there for the storage or use of phosphorus. I like it because it explains why Psilocybin, not psilocin is more prevalent- which the reverse would make more sense. Psilocybin is more complicated to make, and uses up phosphorus that the mushroom needs (That is, if it isn't used for storage or use - or perhaps removal of excess, but I doubt this possibility). I have no idea how this would relate to the ATP cycle. Are there any species that store phosphorus in other forms?

The purpose of Psilocybin is something that really needs to be looked into. It seems like something that is interesting enough just for it's illicitness that it would have been looked into- the evolutionary purpose of biologically-derived recreational drugs has been deeply looked at (again, THC and Morphine), but this one seems to be largely ignored.

 

[MurphyClox]

I brought up the idea that it's there for the storage or use of phosphorus. I like it because it explains why Psilocybin, not psilocin is more prevalent- which the reverse would make more sense.

No, sorry, but this assumption is faulty IMO:
Psilocybine is definitively the chemically more stable of both compounds and, therefore, the preferred form. Whatever the purpose of psilocine/psilocybine might be (it wasn't answered conclusively yet), my best guess would be that psilocybine is more prevalent to prevent degradation of the compound.

- Murphy

 

[clayfig]

I have no information to back my idea up but I thought id post it anyways.

my friend was telling me about how they found psilocybine mushrooms in multiple earlier forms of man's stomach contents. it was purposed that they used it as a tool to hunt in the dark because it would heighten their senses and dilate their pupils to see better in darkness.

 

[hamhurricane]

the "professor fanaticus" website has been taken offline since his arrest in 2002, but if you use the internet archive to search www.fanaticus.com you will find a good amount of information detailing his experiments as well as speculation about the causes of the albinism. the albino strains have now been stabilized and are sold commercially by a number of spore vendors. i just finished writing a piece on this topic so feel free to PM me if you need info.

EDIT: according to paul stamets fungi were the first organisms to colonize dry land, if this is true they would have evolved free from predators for thousands of years, who knows if giant pre-historic mushrooms contained psychoactive alkaloids but if they did it would be more evidence that it is not a repellent for feeding predators. BUT this just lead me to wonder if spores can be propagated through animal droppings (after digestion) like seeds in fruit, perhaps the psilocybin is an attractant!

 

[MurphyClox]

I have no information to back my idea up but I thought id post it anyways.

my friend was telling me about how they found psilocybine mushrooms in multiple earlier forms of man's stomach contents. it was purposed that they used it as a tool to hunt in the dark because it would heighten their senses and dilate their pupils to see better in darkness.

This explanation...
a) seems rather improbable to me, because the heightened sensitivity would be accompanied by hallucinations, even at lower doses.
b) does maybe say something about the purpose that these mushrooms had (resp. still have) for humans, but do not tell anything about the purpose in nature. To my frustration, it seems to be a rather common misconception that certain things in nature were 'made for men'.

- Murphy

 

[MurphyClox]

BUT this just lead me to wonder if spores can be propagated through animal droppings (after digestion) like seeds in fruit, perhaps the psilocybin is an attractant!

This could be answered.

1. Do spores survive the pH and enzymes of the gastrointestinal system?
I think yes, some do.

2. Are psychoactive mushrooms among the common diet of certain animals? Even invertebrates should be counted; any kind of animal.
From personal observation here in my area (middle of Europe), I know that certain mushrooms only get rarely eaten by animals. Even snails do not touch all of them. Of course, there's almost always a certain species that has adapted the ability to digest even the most poisonous ones, but I clearly see tendencies. I've never found a magic mushroom in nature (although they grow here), therefore I don't know the answer to this special question. But considering the need of lots of (but not all) psilocybine-containing species for dung, one may ask, too: Do sheep/cow/... are known to eat these mushrooms?

3. Are there animals who react 'positively' to intoxication with psilocybine?
I know that there are for example certain baboons (among other animals) that intentionally consume naturally fermented fruits, to get an alcohol-intoxication. So the question is not far-fetched. But, IIRC, in animal tests (at least with mammals), psilocybine was not among the drugs that led to repeated self-administration. Plz correct me, if I may be mistaken here.

4. Somehow related question: Are there any animals that are known to accumulate psilocybine?
If so, we would have a nice example for a symbiosis (animals spread the spores, mushrooms provide repellent for the critter). There are numerous examples known in nature for similar ways of symbiosis, among them the arrow-dart frogs and pufferfish, none of them producing their poison themselves. But with psilocybine? Never heard of that...

My thoughts for this morning...

Peace! - Murphy

 

[Coolio]

BUT this just lead me to wonder if spores can be propagated through animal droppings (after digestion) like seeds in fruit, perhaps the psilocybin is an attractant!

P. cubensis spores pass through the digestive system of cattle unharmed, in fact the cow patties come out already colonized with mycelium. This is why the Hindus consider cows so holy and draw their gods with blue skin. Cattle have been shitting out mycelium cakes for all of human history.

This doesn't mean that psilocybin is an attractant or repellant. I believe the cows get the spores in their mouths from the grass and such they eat, and they don't eat any actual mushrooms.

 

[Hammilton]

But, IIRC, in animal tests (at least with mammals), psilocybine was not among the drugs that led to repeated self-administration. Plz correct me, if I may be mistaken here.

Thats correct; IIRC, the only way they were able to obtain SA was through sensory deprivation!

 

[Hammilton]

This is why the Hindus consider cows so holy and draw their gods with blue skin. Cattle have been shitting out mycelium cakes for all of human history.

I pray this is a joke.

 

[bcuzZ]

I consider it a mutation that didn´t cause any disadvantages. So why should it be erased by "evolution"? I´m not aware of the cycle from which psilocibin et al originate, but there could be a positive net ATP gain producing it and therefore being useful to the fungus . ? .
The reason for the presence of these substances is multi-layered and depends on millions of factors stretched over millions of years.

To my frustration, it seems to be a rather common misconception that certain things in nature were 'made for men'.

religion may encourage these thoughts. Id rather suggest, that things in nature were made for the allmighty eubacteria

 

[MurphyClox]

I consider it a mutation that didn´t cause any disadvantages. So why should it be erased by "evolution"? [1] I´m not aware of the cycle from which psilocibin et al originate, but there could be a positive net ATP gain producing it and therefore being useful to the fungus . ? [2]
The reason for the presence of these substances is multi-layered and depends on millions of factors stretched over millions of years. [3]

[1] To have an ability that has no advantages IS actually a disadvantage. Reason: It takes energy to synthesize the compound in vivo. And nature is not squandering without a reason... The distribution in the kingdom of fungi shows that it is most probably NOT a random mutation that would be included in one of the 2 mentioned exceptions (see 1st post), i.e. that just wasn't abolished yet.

[2] I think that's not true. Psilocybine contains a phosphate-ester, which counts in biochemistry as "low-energy-bond" (quite sloppy term, I know), in contrary to phosphate anhydrides (like in ATP & ADP).

[3] Probable, yes. But that's exactly what I'd like to know...

YO! Murphy

 

[bcuzZ]

it was just a try to compare it to the process of fermenting glucose resulting in glycolisis -> pyruvate -> ethanol which regenerates nadh. ethanol itself has no energy rich anhydrous bond as well but is a useful step ( metabolism + selfdefence ) =) . So it could be a common byproduct by a still undiscoverd psilo-cyclus ( --> zitratzyklus ? ) . Then there would be a metabolic advantage so [1] and [2] are answered. This would explain the fact why psilocibin producing funghi are spread all over the world , assuming the cyclus to be an ancient common gene.
just an idea

 

[shibireru]

Is it entirely impossible that psilocin and psilocybin are merely endocrines that happen to be psychoactive in mammals? That might explain the teratogenic effect of removing them from cubensis.

 

[MurphyClox]

That might explain the teratogenic effect of removing them from cubensis.

Sorry? Could you elaborate this, please?

 

[Temeraroius]

Is it entirely impossible that psilocin and psilocybin are merely endocrines that happen to be psychoactive in mammals? That might explain the teratogenic effect of removing them from cubensis.

If the removal of these alkaloids from mushrooms makes them grow improperly (which is what I think you are saying), the compounds could have something to do with cell growth or energy production within the fungus. It seems most likely to me that is has to do with ATP production (which would affect growth in some way or another).

 

[shibireru]

Sorry? Could you elaborate this, please?

I very quickly scanned this thread before I replied and consequently misapprehended the purport of the second post in this thread which I took to treat of some experiment which had shown that the low levels of or absence of psilocin or psilocybin had produced morphological changes in the mushrooms. I also assumed that the mushroom of the experiment was psilocybe cubensis.

Mental note: if you can't bother to take the time to understand what precisely is being communicated, don't respond.

 

[hamhurricane]

the hypothesis could be tested with relative ease by growing a non-psychoactive psilocybe genus mushroom and a psychoactive one under black lights and observing how they reacted. obviously the fact they are different species would distort the data. i cant remember off the top of my head but i thought there was something you could do to psychoactive mushrooms to inhibit production of psilocybin, perhaps something that is added to the substrate *thinking*