Talk:Gram-positive bacteria

Should be more similar to the Gram-negative article

This article should be more similar to the Gram-negative article. Previous unsigned comment made by 70.161.65.167

I agree, if I get any spare time I will attempt some improvements. If anyone feels like a stab it, go ahead. Mushin^talk 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No practical value

\This article has no practical value and must be redone...I agree. --Sugarskane 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It has a lot of value actually. No article is ever complete, and this one is just less complete than some others. Mushin^talk 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, no article is ever done, but it still needs to be redone -- it's more a series of GP bacteria than an explanation of what it means to be GP. --Sugarskane 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mushin is right, this is actually very important. I know I'm replying to a two-year old message. Some of you probably aren't even active. I know I had to look this up for science fair. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

the Gram Negative page states "Many species of Gram-negative bacteria are pathogenic," -- are gram-positive species less likely to be pathogenic? (I would consider this very useful information for someone who is not familiar with the subject). Rdchambers 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This should now be addressed in the article. Schu1321 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Classification - OM

I removed the following section from the classfication section (at least temporarily) as it seemed somewhat confusing and was unreferenced. I will look into reworking it and adding it back in, if someone else wants to look at it or revert that change, feel free. Schu1321 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"If the second membrane (of Gram-negative bacteria) is a derived condition, the two may have been basal among the bacteria; otherwise they are probably a relatively recent monophyletic group. They have been considered as possible ancestors for the archaeans and eukaryotes, both because they are unusual in lacking the second membrane and because of various biochemical similarities such as the presence of sterols."

---

Actinobacteria (including Corynebacterium) are not Firmicutes: In the original bacterial phyla, the Gram-positive organisms made up the phylum Firmicutes, a name now used for the largest group. It includes many well-known genera such as Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, (which are cocci) and Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Nocardia, Clostridium, Actinobacteria, and Listeria (which are rods and can be remembered by the mnemonic obconical). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.159.165 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Significance

I believe that there should be a thorough explanation of the effects of GP vs GN bacteria on different antibiotics and the relative effectiveness of these antibiotics on the bacteria (i.e. how some are less effective on GN bacteria because they attack peptidoglycan and not the reproductive parts of the bacteria). At least a link should be posted to the antibiotic article that has this info (Actually, I'm not sure if it does have this info...) 98.110.150.204 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Streptococcus misspelled in Gram positive heirarchy graphic

Invite correction, to add to professionalism of the appearance of this article. Prof D. Meduban (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Stepto > Strepto. --Squidonius (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The graphic titled "Species identification hierarchy in clinical settings" should say Streptococcus not Steptococcus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions section needs strengthening...

with added firmness, on the basis of 16S and other molecular phylogenetic information. Prof D Meduban (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "added firmness" via phylogeny. Bacterial phyla contains several cladograms that could be copied. I can envision a small cladogram of Firmicutes orders with coloured lines to indicate Gram strain (maybe using the new cladex template), but I am not sure how that would help. The section can be however expanded greatly and there is a review paper which deals with cell structure (Sutcliffe, I. C. (2010). "A phylum level perspective on bacterial cell envelope architecture". Trends in Microbiology. 18 (10): 464–470. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2010.06.005. PMID 20637628.) --Squidonius (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple inaccuracies

This article contains multiple inaccuracies and out of date emphasis. "Monera" idea is long out of date, unneeded here. An S-layer is not a "membrane." It is misleading to say that most human pathogens are Gram positive, as there are plenty of Gram negative pathogens (Salmonella, V. cholerae etc.). --Joan Slonczewski, microbiologist at Kenyon College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.51.204 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is too complicated

This article, well written as it is, is way too complicated for the average Wikipedia reader. I have some medical breakdown and even with that I couldn't follow most of it. I think it needs to be thoroughly re-written so that it reads more like a patient package insert and less like a pharmaceutical textbook.

Risssa (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Standardized spelling & punctuation

Standard form used by the US Federal Government's Center for Disease Control is as follows: [1]

gram

Gram should be capitalized and never hyphenated when used as Gram stain; gram negative and gram positive should be lowercase and only hyphenated when used as a unit modifier.

• Gram staining
• gram negative
• gram-positive bacteria

It would be helpful for this article, Gram-negative bacteria, and Gram staining to be standardized accordingly. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

See similar thread at Talk:Gram-negative bacteria > Standardized spelling & punctuation. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mix-and-matching these styles is not permissible on Wikipedia, per MOS:ARTCON. Wikipedia capitalizes eponyms and other proper names, and has no special "do not capitalize if adjectival" rule; we don't care if CDC does have one. Source usage is inconsistent, so follow WP's style manual when writing at WP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Diagram is confusing

The cartoon for gram positive and negative cell wall structure is confusing. It labels the red coloured bacteria as Gram positive when this article itself says that Gram positive bacteria retain the crystal violet stain and appear purple. The structures are correct but the colouring is counter-intuitive at best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.72.132 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gram-positive bacteria/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== What does this have to do with cashews? == I was reading this article about acid in cashews, and it said something about the acid pertaining to Gram-Positive bacteria. Care to elaborate? _________________________ I think the image of the membrane structure image tend to spread confusion about the periplasmic space which is supposed to be a gram negative only feature —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oboros (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 16:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition on probiotics

The following was recently added to the Pathogenesis (then renamed "Clinical Considerations"):

"Gram positive bacteria present in the lumen of the gastrointestinal tract have been found to be of benefit in the probiotic treatment of inflammatory bowel disease"

which was referenced with this review of trials investigating the effects of probiotics on various inflammatory bowel diseases. I removed the new material because it seems like this is not a conclusion of the cited paper. The only mention of gram-positive bacteria I could find in the paper was a single mention where they note that a single primary study had reported that a group given a Bifidobacterium/Lactobacillus intervention had reduced ulcerative colitis relapse over a control group. They mention a whole bunch of other studies, and conclude

"In conclusion, larger well-designed RCTs are needed to further determine whether probiotics, type of probiotics, and/or synbiotics are of clear benefit for both the induction and/or the maintenance of remission in UC."

That said, I'm certainly not opposed to having information about gram-positives as probiotics here. If someone has time to dig up some good sources, I'd be happy to help put together a section on it. Anyway, just wanted to explain the removal of material so the adder didn't think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Ajpolino (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Gram positive

Please don't make assertion that lower case gram is the conventional way of writing. It is not. Just because some organization recommends it does not make it so. A quick check on Pubmed shows that the lowercase form is the less common one, probably only around a quarter of the first 100 papers I checked - [2]. It is normal to use the more common form in Wikipedia (therefore uppercase Gram-positive), for example as recommended in WP:COMMONNAME. Hzh (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I certainly see it both ways in papers, so there doesn't seem to be some global consensus on capitalization of "gram-positive/negative". It'd be nice if we could find a ref (or some refs) that give clear, authoritative advice on which is used (or, more likely, mention that both are used). Our current strategy of using as "refs" the definitions from Merriam Webster, Dorland's, OED, et al. doesn't really backup the claims that lowercase is recommended but uppercase is very common. The only sources I've seen which backup a statement on which might be "recommended" is the CDC cite which recommends lowercase and hyphenated, and this old APS style manual which recommends lowercase and hyphenated. Based on those, I've been gently reverting when people edit bacteria articles just to capitalize gram-positive/negative, however since it's so common either way I haven't been changing capitalization in articles where the capitalized form is already there. I'd appreciate any insight from others. Maybe we could find a source that discusses the split and mentions that both are common? That'd probably be the best thing to cite here... Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has come up several times on several pages. Pinging those involved in prior discussion here. Please ping others who have been involved in other iterations of this. Hopefully we can settle this to everyone's satisfaction and have some kind of reasonable consensus going forward. @Wikiuser100, Quercus solaris, and Jytdog:Ajpolino (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here, one is that the article made a false claim it is conventionally written in lowercase (conventionally-written means commonly written, a look at scientific literature shows that the opposite is true - more papers use uppercase Gram). People should take care not to spread false information. The other issue is whether we should make it consistent, recommending a style that goes against common usage. I think unless there is an overwhelming case for doing so, it should be left as how people prefer it, rather than trying to enforce something most people don't do. The note on orthography is good enough to show that either way is done. I find the explanation for the use of lowercase dubious in any case - there is a difference between something that has become a single word like "parkinsonian" (even then I can find counter examples where uppercase are normally used, like "Newtonian") and one that some people would even still write as two separate words unhyphenated (even if the hyphenated form is more common). Hzh (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would just add a note that according to the Oxford style guide here, eponym derivatives in medical texts like "parkinsonian" may be used in lowercase, therefore the recommendation of CDC may have to do with it being a health and medical organization rather than a usage style that may be applied generally. In many other areas in science, the uppercase is more generally used (e.g. Newtonian mechanics, Lorenztian function, Gaussian distribution, Darwinian selection, etc.). Hzh (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither style is wrong for these terms (gram-positive, gram-negative). At the end of the day I am fine with whichever style Wikipedia chooses for its own content per its own style guide (WP:MEDMOS). The only thing I do care about is that when people ask the question "which one is 'correct'?" Wikipedia explains to them that "both are OK, and the choice just depends on whose style guide is governing." The section "Orthographic note" basically already accomplishes this with the version that exists as I write this. I could probably write an even more neutral and explanatory version (same point, better explanation), which I might if I have time. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Quercus solaris (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the consolidated note. This reflects reality much better than the previous iteration did. Not totally clear on if the preprint vs postprint bit is necessary, but it's definitely an improvement. Ajpolino (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would change the wording on lowercase gram being used in major dictionaries, since I see both forms. Lowercase - Merriam Webster, Dorland; uppercase - Oxford dictionary, Collins; both - AHD.

Agreed. Went to do it, saw that it has been done. Looks good to me. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Gram" is someone's name, isn't it? The convention on WP and just about everywhere else is to cap the item. Tony (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted in earlier thread: Mix-and-matching these styles ("Gram stain", "gram-negative") is not permissible on Wikipedia, per MOS:ARTCON. Wikipedia capitalizes eponyms and other proper names, and has no special "do not capitalize if adjectival" rule; we don't care if CDC does have one. Source usage is inconsistent, so follow WP's style manual when writing at WP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

HiSMcCandlish this usage has already been dealt with - see Orthographic note on both pages. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The orthographic note is about inconsistent source usage off of WP; it has nothing to do with how WP itself is written, which is to its own style manual.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization RfC

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The capitalization matter, which people have apparently been editwarring about since 2004, is being addressed at an RfC (also "advertised" at WP:VPPOL):

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 196#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The result of the above RfC was "no consensus".

Elsewhere, SMcCandlish wrote:

"The scientific literature, like the general book-publishing market, strongly prefer Gram-negative over Gram negative, gram-negative, or 'gram negative. There is no way around this. You can blame me for this if you like (my skin is thick), but it won't change the facts."

This appears to be accurate.

Also see MOS:EPONYM and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:EPONYM

See straw poll below for the current local consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll

Per MOS:EPONYM, Should capitalized eponyms (named after Hans Christian Gram) lose their capitalization when used adjectivally? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Gram negative"

• Support as being the form most used in the scientific literature. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support caps since Gram is clearly a proper name and it's good to distinguish from the lowercase gram (I realize there are style guides out there that suggest lowercasing names in adjective forms of eponyms, but that's not normal English, and is only followed about half the time even in specialist literature, and conflicts with WP's fundamental style guideline of using caps to signal proper names). Add hyphen when used as a modifier. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"gram-negative"

• Support name with or without hyphen is the commonly used name in scientific and medical textbooks (recent) and on major websites --Iztwoz (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support I'm more accustomed to seeing the lowercase (with hyphen) in the scientific literature. I've been surprised that so many seem unfamiliar with the convention, but as SMcCandlish pointed out at Talk:Gram-negative_bacteria, the lowercase is more common in American English (according to NGrams), and is dominating there more over time. Contrast with British English where the uppercase is steadily more common than the lower. In the combo search they're just about even. So perhaps this discomfort with the other is a US vs. UK thing, and we're sorting ourselves into a "Brits" and "Americans" category? Though GM, forgive the snooping, I tested my theory by checking your userpage which outs you as a Californian. So maybe not. Ajpolino (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Just a note that I got confused with the NGrams and searched "Gram-negative" (per the headings) and not "Gram-positive" per the page we're actually on. G/gram-positive are a bit closer: American, British, all. Ajpolino (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  It's interesting that the lowercase is pretty much an American thing. I wonder why. Perhaps the CDC's style guide? Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re: "Though GM, forgive the snooping, I tested my theory by checking your userpage which outs you as a Californian. So maybe not", it's actually a semi-interesting story. My family is British and I was raised -- in Southern California -- speaking the Queen's English. So at home I sounded like a BBC presenter. Meanwhile, as is their custom, the other children at school persecuted every slight difference any child exhibited and the teachers enforced US spelling and grammar with an iron fist, so I learned how to speak and write like a surfer dood. UK English still feels "right" and US English still feels "wrong" yet most of my writing is in US English. In conversation I am more likely to slip in the occasional "Oi!" or "Bob's your uncle". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Interesting indeed! Perhaps gram/Gram is the test of true Brit blood. Ajpolino (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thought to add this comment posted on Gram-negative tak page here - Wikipedia is written for the general reader: to say that upper case is used in the scientific literature does not support this aim since the general reader is not inclined to look up Pubmed papers. Instead what will be looked at are reputable websites such as NIH, CDC, Encyclopedia Britannica, the popular Khan academy, Uptodate - who ALL use lower case hyphenated terms. Major medical textbooks – Ferri's 2019, Robbins 2018, Harrisons 2012, and Microbiology classic Brock Biology of Microrganisms 2019 all use lower case hyphenated terms - consistently and throughout. Also all these sources use upper case for Gram stain. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Plural or singular title?

Is there a good reason why the title of this article (and also that of Gram-negative bacteria) is plural rather than singular? See WP:NCPLURAL. I guess it could be argued that this article is about a class of specific things so allowed to be plural. However, articles about taxa (which are definitely classes of specific things) that are at a common language name are always at the singular, e.g. Virus not Viruses, Orchid not Orchids, Fern not Ferns, Daylily not Daylilies. The lower-case "bacteria" in the title and text shows that this is a common language use, not a scientific one. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Syndrome associated with antibiotics

The treatment of bacterial infection with antibiotics is a common and singnificant medical practice,while some antibiotics attack or dissolve bacteria cell wall others prevent them from producing proteins. 42.108.7.1 (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)