Talk:Entamoeba histolytica

Protista Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Protista, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of protists and protistology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ProtistaWikipedia:WikiProject ProtistaTemplate:WikiProject ProtistaProtista articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

pathophysiology of amebiasis

Etymology of "histolytica"

From the article: "The word histolytic literally means "tissue destroyer"." "Lysis" comes from the Greek "lusis", which means "loosening". Generally in biology it refers to the loss of membrane integrity and the implied subsequent cell death. So while "tissue destroyer" isn't necessarily inaccurate, histolytica does not literally mean "tissue destroyer". Inoculatedcities (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Amoebiasis

It seems most of this article is about amoebiasis rather than the amoeba itself. I suggest that either this information be merged into that article and removed from here, or the two articles be merged and one redirected to the other. Hairy Dude 19:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#March_2006. Hairy Dude 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the "move the amoebiasis info to that page and put Entamoeba histolytica organism-specific info here" option. MarcoTolo 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are two different protozoans, so they deserve their own page. Linking because of commonality would be fine, but there would be no reason to have the same page for both. E. histolytica (Amebiasis) is too commonly called Amoebiasis and there have been wrong diagnoses, because of incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.36.7 (talk • contribs)

Amoebiasis is the 'disease' associated with infection with E. histolytica. For this reason, it would appear to be appropriate to merge the two articles, possibly putting a sub-heading 'Amoebiasis' on the 'Entamoeba histolytica' page and having a 'REDIRECT' on the 'Amoebiasis' page. Ballista 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote merge the two. Also, why is amoebiasis in the parasitic diseases category, while entamoeba histolytica is the waterborne disease category????? Amoebiasis should be in both categories and this article should be in neither since entamoeba histolytica is a disease causing organism, NOT a disease. -JP 69.207.22.219 02:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- on mature reflection (see my previous comment above) I think it appropriate to have TWO clearly demarcated but cross-referenced articles - one on the organism 'Amoeba histolytica' and the other on the disease 'Amoebiasis'. A parallel can be seen with 'Leptospira' and 'Leptospirosis'. In this way, descriptive information about the organism (biology) can be separated from but properly linked to information about the disease (medicine/epidemiology). If there is agreement on this, when would we make a start? Ballista 03:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Added afterthought: is there a general policy on this sort of issue? I note that there are separate WikiProjects for 'Biology' and for 'Health sciences'. It appears to me that this shows the distinction very clearly. There must be parallel issues about many disease/organism articles, which could be resolved in the same way. I firmly believe that the format I have proposed is appropriate and should apply 'across the board'. One good reason for this is the biological fact that presence of an organism is NOT equivalent to presence of a disease. There are complex host-parasite issues that determine whether or not a disease takes place. Therefore, the organism can properly be discussed as a stand-alone, with the disease and all its dynamics discussed separately. Ballista 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki standard on Organism/Disease entries

I just got through dealing with this issue on a few protozoal diseases. Apparently, a standard has been developed and is being used in several other cases:

Giardiasis and Giardia lamblia
Amoebiasis and Entamoeba histolytica
Dientamoebiasis and Dientamoeba fragilis
Blastocystosis and Blastocystis

As it appears to me, the information about the disease goes under the disease heading, while information that is more technical/microbiological in nature goes under the species heading. For what's worth, I put a big "For disease, see" (Dientamoebiasis for example) entry on the species heading. Gastro guy 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor changes and additions made

I changed the link line "For the parasitic infection" to "For the parasitic disease", this is because only 10% of the infected individuals with E. histolytica develop the disease symptoms. Also, 50 million people are estimated to be infected with E. histolytica according to WHO and other sources. AmoebaTamer 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to link line change

I have changed this link line again slightly for the following reason. The term 'amoebiasis' refers to infection qith Entamoeba histolytica whether symptoms are present or not. I am not sure I understand the argument related to the 10% figure and the 50 million. If taken as accurate (and there is a question mark over where the WHO numbers come from), 50 million have amoebiasis but only 5 million have symptomatic or invasive amoebiasis i.e. disease. Entamoeba 21:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment

I agree with your addition to the sentence "For the infection and disease caused by this parasite". There are many references that cite that 50 million people are infected with E. histolytica. One recent one is this: Amoebiasis: current status in Australia, Med J Aust. 2007 Apr 16;186(8):412-6. AmoebaTamer 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but...

Yes, I agree that lots of places cite these figures - the problem is I can't find how they were arrived at! Entamoeba 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question...

Many articles refer to the WHO/PAHO/UNESCO report from 1997, though I could not find the full text. (If you have it I will be happy if you could send me). It was originally thought that 500 million people are infected with E. histolytica (Problems in recognition and diagnosis of amebiasis: estimation of the global magnitude of morbidity and mortality, Rev Infect Dis. 1986 Mar-Apr;8(2):228-38).

I think the number of infected individuals with E. histolytica which are distinguished from infections with E. dispar and E. moshkovskii, came from several independent epidemiological studies. For example look at this study from Iran that state that less than 10% of amoeba infected stool samples are positive for E. histolytica.

The distribution of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar in northern, central, and southern Iran, Parasitol Res. 2004 Sep;94(2):96-100 [1]

See also: Amebiasis: Clinical Implications of the Recognition of Entamoeba dispar, Curr Infect Dis Rep. 1999 Dec;1(5):441-447. AmoebaTamer 12:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a question...

The full text of the 1997 WHO/PAHO... consultation is here: http://www.who.int/docstore/wer/pdf/1997/wer7214.pdf

I am very familiar with it - I was there and helped write it! We cited the WHO estimates for mortality but no one could tell us how they were obtained. The evidence for the numbers of people infected is based on very small surveys in most cases. At the time of the 1997 report very few distinguished E. histolytica from E. dispar so the 10% value for E. histolytica was (and still is) a rough estimate. It fits with the Iran paper you cite, but in Europe and N. America relative incidence of E. histolytica is much lower. The 50 million number relies on both the 10% E. histolytica being correct and the 500 million (or 10% of the world population) being infected with E. histolytica / E. dispar also being correct. I believe the latter number is also based on rough estimates, made by Walsh in the mid 1980s from a survey of the literature. So the numbers seem to be estimates based on estimates based on estimates. No one has any really solid data from across the world, just bits and pieces, and no one will fund that sort of work any more... Entamoeba 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I have no idea how to use the citing reference part of wikipedia. I added the treatment part. The source was that medscape site, link found under "external links." If someone can name the link properly and put it under the references, that would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.61.29 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the treatment and added a source. Coinmanj (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pathology questions

Imp questions 2405:204:5303:A344:582F:25EE:F9C3:4905 (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]