Fusarium oxysporum (filamentous fungus) / Extracellular electrophysiology and stimulus-response study

Fungal electrical activity: a sensor study, not a decoded language

Publication year 2025 · Note reviewed 2026-10-14

Buffi et al. tested a printed fungal-potential card on one Fusarium oxysporum strain (NEU 195). Table 1 reports a significant pre-induction power-spectral-density difference of about 1,604.752% between 24 fungal electrode-pair records and 8 non-inoculated control records (p<0.001). The study supports a specialized laboratory measurement of fungal-associated electrical activity; it does not decode a fungal language.

What we reviewed · Full primary article and dataset metadata review; supplement and files unreviewed

Reviewed the full PMC article text, including Methods, Results and Table 1, figures, Discussion, data statement and article license, plus the Mendeley Data v1 description, displayed license and visible Files section. Table 1 reports electrode-pair counts, but the reviewed main text does not establish their independent culture-level replication. Supplementary Document S1 (including Method S1), raw dataset files and code bytes were not inspected or executed; no result was reproduced.

Not independently reviewed by a mycologist or electrophysiologist.

Study at a glance

Measurement: Printed circuit-board cards with 2 mm gold-covered differential electrodes spaced 1 cm apart; shielded cable, humid incubation chamber, Faraday cage and time-frequency analysis. This is not a phone-microphone setup.
Model: One Fusarium oxysporum strain, NEU 195. After about four days, hyphae were expected to colonize the second electrode; recording continued for seven days. The main text does not establish whether the electrode-pair records represent independent cultures.
Treatment controls: Table 1 reports n=3 for each treatment contrast; none was significant: cycloheximide −74.214% (p=.327), voriconazole +1,201.803% (p=.391), calcimycin +58.503% (p=.580), and sodium azide +1,358.933% (p=.116).
Electrode confound: Calcimycin and DMSO produced the same reduction pattern, which the authors attribute more plausibly to DMSO interaction with gold electrodes than to fungal response.
Available data and code: Mendeley describes raw voltage data before/after stimuli and displays CC BY 4.0; its visible page did not expose a file manifest. The article identifies supplementary Method S1 for code. Neither component was acquired or reviewed file-by-file.

Reading location: Buffi et al. 2025, iScience 28:113484, DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2025.113484: full PMC article text including Methods, Results/Table 1, figures, Discussion, data statement and license. Mendeley Data v1, DOI 10.17632/srkxbkh6sp.1: description, displayed license and visible Files section. For methodological context, Blatt et al. 2024 commentary and Buffi et al. 2025 FEMS review. Supplementary Document S1, raw dataset files and code bytes not inspected.

What this does — and doesn’t — establish

This is a laboratory sensor/method study on one strain, not an animal-style communication experiment. Extracellular voltage and frequency patterns do not identify a message, receiver, referent or semantic code. For the post-induction drug/carrier comparisons, Table 1 lists n=3 and no contrast is statistically significant: cycloheximide −74.214% (p=.327), voriconazole +1,201.803% (p=.391), calcimycin +58.503% (p=.580), and sodium azide +1,358.933% (p=.116). The calcimycin pattern matched its DMSO carrier, which the authors consider likely electrode interference; the sodium-azide series also had a brief water-control anomaly. The main text does not establish whether electrode-pair counts are independent biological replicates. The 2024 critique and 2025 review describe unresolved measurement and interpretation challenges. Mendeley displays CC BY 4.0 but its visible Files section contains no file entries; no dataset files were reviewed. The article's data statement points to Method S1 for code, while its software table points to Document S2; the supplement, code bytes and component-specific terms remain unreviewed.

What we can build on

Treat fungal electrophysiology as a separate sensing channel that needs laboratory electrodes, environmental controls and biological controls. Evidence of stimulus-associated activity is not evidence of language or of a phone-mediated way to talk with mushrooms.

A practical starting point

Metadata-only; article, dataset and supplementary code were not acquired

Available starting point: The Mendeley record describes raw voltage-potential data from F. oxysporum before and after external stimuli. The article data statement points to supplementary Method S1 for code, while its software table identifies Document S2; neither pointer's contents have been reviewed.

Reuse limits: The iScience article identifies CC BY 4.0 for the article. Mendeley Data v1 displays CC BY 4.0 for that dataset. These statements apply to separate components; Method S1's code terms were not independently verified. No files were downloaded or admitted to training.

Our proposed experiment: A future methods replication would need exact file provenance, isolate and replicate metadata, carrier/electrode controls, and a preregistered separation of fungal growth/activity from abiotic voltage shifts. It would test a physiological measurement, not fungal language.

The next reading task

Before any reuse, obtain the exact Mendeley file manifest and data, reproduce the documented preprocessing, and review the supplementary files to reconcile the Method S1 and Document S2 code references and their terms separately from the paper and dataset. Ask a qualified mycologist/electrophysiologist to assess biological replication, controls and electrode/solvent effects. Keep it outside the first animal benchmark and do not start model training.

Go to the sources

Detection of electrical signals in fungal mycelia in response to external stimuli (2025) ↗
Buffi et al. report extracellular fungal-potential-card recordings in Fusarium oxysporum, including a growth-associated PSD difference and nonsignificant treatment contrasts. The paper does not establish semantic communication.
Open full-text article record ↗
Raw voltage data for the fungal-potential-card study (Mendeley Data v1) ↗
Mendeley describes raw voltage-potential data from Fusarium oxysporum before and after external stimuli and displays CC BY 4.0. The visible Files section contains no file entries, so file-level contents and analysis suitability remain unchecked.
Mendeley Data record and license ↗
Fungal measurement caveats ↗
Electrical signaling in fungi: past and present challenges (2025). Research and replication-oriented discussion of measurement methods and environmental artifacts.
Fungal language critique ↗
Blatt et al. Does electrical activity in fungi function as a language? Fungal Ecology (2024). Methodological commentary challenging linguistic claims.

Original editorial note by Talk2Nature contributors. AI-assisted, source-grounded synthesis; not a peer review or an independent replication. Linked works retain their own rights.