Talk:Mycoplasma genitalium

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Redirect

Why is there a redirect from Mycoplasma to Mycoplasma genitalium? Is Mycoplasma Pneumoniae neglectable, maybe? -- Ruhrjung 04:56 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

The redirect is a temporary measure to fit Mycoplasma genitalium into the bacterial hierarchy without writing a new page. A lot of bacterial genera redirect to species at the moment, and all are somewhat inappropriate, but will be a lot of work to fix. By all means, if you would like to add a Mycoplasma article instead, please do so!
Maybe I will. :-)) Sometime... :->>> I think Mycoplasma Pneumoniae is important in terms of impact on the population/the society. I would, however, lean on old knowledge (not mine, actually, but my lover's) from medschool some 10 years ago. The relevant books are copyrighted in the early 1990s, and to fit in a textbook the knowledge ought to have been old already then.
By the way: I forgot to express my appreciation for your work. That was a mistake. :) -- Ruhrjung 06:57 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

STD

is this an STD, if its found in people with NGU only, then is it?Qrc2006 10:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The smallest non-viral genome...

...is currently identified as Carsonella ruddii. This article should be updated to reflect this. -Gavin 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, could there be a link to how many genes M. genitalium really has? My book here mentions 477 genes, the article however mentions more. It would be nice to be able to VERIFY the origin of this information. 178.190.73.145 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image currently portrayed will make no sense to the majority of readers of this article. It should either be given a caption as to what exactly is represented, or an alternative picture should be used.Lilac Soul 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd prefer a short explanation, maybe with a link to another article that explains it more in-depth (if such a page exists). d20 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Concerning The Term "Free-living"

If M. genitalium is a parasite, then isn't the descriptor of "free-living" contradictory?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size

M. genitalium is the smallest known free-living bacterium, and the second-smallest bacterium after the recently-discovered endosymbiont Carsonella ruddii

Can we get some figure here please? --Iustinus (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest known genome that can constitute a cell?

The article states that Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome that can constitute a cell, yet at the same time it concedes that Nanoarchaeum equitans, which is a cellular organism, has an even smaller genome.  --Lambiam 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mb as in MegaBITS?? Because MB is DIFFERENT from Mb!

Hi, I’m not sure the Mb is correct. Can somebody tell me if this is really bits, or misspelled bytes… or even base pairs, which cannot be written as “b” at all, since that’s already reserved for bits. — 89.0.229.188 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The correct unit is bp (for base pair) usually with a capital prefix attached like Kbp, Mbp, Gbp. Titus III (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference link no longer working

http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/urethritis-and-cervicitis.htm#uc2

Goes to Page Not Found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.102.237 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M. genitalium's correct number of genes: 575, 482, or 475?

While clarifying a statement in the article's Introduction so as to show that "smallest genome" is a function of the number of base-pairs (and not the number of genes), I added what I thought was the correct number of genes for M.genitalium. It was based on a table in the article Mycoplasma laboratorium (which stated it as 475). However, the section below gives it as 482. After further reading of the M.genitalium article, I realized that it already gave a figure of 575. So which of the three is the correct one? Titus III (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The correct number is ...
... 525. :D
I think nobody really knows right now. 525 probably is the most plausible one, but either way we need to explain HOW they came to this number. 2A02:8388:1641:5500:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

525 genes - How do you correct a documented error?

The correct gene count, 525, is mentioned in the "Genome" section but we still have the wrong number in the intro at footnote 4. Also, Footnote 4 does not even seem to support the gene count it is next to. Also, the illustration still has the wrong "b" ,"bp" marking. Zipzip50 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Zipzip50 (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the number confirmed? Older textbooks have 482 or 485. I understand that some of the genes
are estimated/inferred, so 525 may be correct - but considering that we now have like 4
different numbers, I think it would be helpful to document HOW they came to this number.
2A02:8388:1641:5500:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The gene count depends on which genome you are looking at and which gene-finding "gene-predicting" tool you are using on the genome. There is bound to be some variation. --Artoria2e5 🌉 16:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New synthetic microbe has fewest genes.

Science Magazine March 25, 2016 covers the creation of a new stripped down synthetic microbe that has the fewest genes, 473. It looks like a new hot topic, as more researchers will be using the new cell for important gene work. This may be a good reason to re-open The Minimal Genome Project as a proper page on its own.[1] Zipzip50 (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Zipzip50 (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mycoplasma laboratorium gives a gene count for M. genitalium as 475 since Dec 2011. If this is indeed its correct gene count, then the new microbe's 473 doesn't seem to be much of an improvement. Titus III (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The correct count M. genitalium is 525, but the wrong number appears in so many places it takes a lot of time to get to them all. As to the value of this new cell, for one thing, it reproduces very rapidly, and that makes it very useful in research work. Zipzip50 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I still can't find good resources for the gene count difference between M. labortorium Syn3.0, Syn3A, and Syn3B. It's another rather tedious facet of working with M. mycoides on top of the taxonomy issues with the clade and common misconceptions of the genus as a whole. MichaelPlasma 21:39, 20 Oct 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPlasma (talk • contribs)

Renaming

The new official name for this is Mycoplasmoides genitalium, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy. I suggest renaming this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:2CAF:9300:112B:CF52:A3CF:CD6F (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the name of Mycoplasmoides genitalium from Mycoplasma genitalium. Maybe need to redirect from page Mycoplasma genitalium to a new page labelled Mycoplasmoides genitalium? Source is Gupta et al 2018. Struggling to edit the taxonomical template right of first paragraph: Genus and citing authority need to be fixed still. CoffeeShopFantasy (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mycoplasma field has continuously rejected Gupta's taxonomy due to his group pushing a unilateral change against the wishes of the field (and some alleged conflicts of interest). Most new publications are still referring to the organism as Mycoplasma genitalium. See https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.003632 for more information, which was brought up again at the 24th Biennial Congress of the International Organization for Mycoplasmology this past July. I admit I'm not very savvy on Wikipedia's policies with regards to taxonomy but I can say with high confidence more challenges to Gupta's taxonomy are going to cause a lot of headaches for this article. MichaelPlasma (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reversed changes to naming. Included section in History explaining the rejection of the proposed name by Gupta et al :::: CoffeeShopFantasy (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeShopFantasy we should probably re-do the naming change, because it turns out it really is the valid name as far as bacterial nomenclature is concerned. See Judicial Opinion. (There should already be some text somewhere on Wikipedia about how existing microbe names set in stone for medicine often clash with taxonomists trying to clean things up, but I am not able to find it right now. I recommend reading JO 122 before you act, because there's a little nuance about how it's okay to use an old, validly published synonym if you want to. Still, right now Mycoplasmoides is at least as legetimate as, if not more legitimate than, the old one.) Artoria2e5 🌉 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, let's not move and just do the infobox and bolding -- I'll do that. Adapting everything to Gupta is going to take much more time given the number of other pages to move and create. I mean, I don't buy the whole conflict-of-interest thing, but the amount of work is definitely up there. Someone on Wikipedia should get a yearly task to read the latest "Taxonomic update on proposed nomenclature and classification changes for bacteria of medical importance" and do the thing. --Artoria2e5 🌉 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits look amazing. I love the flow of it, and it seems to fully explain the issue. CoffeeShopFantasy (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeShopFantasy: I happened upon the "some text somewhere" here: Bacterial_taxonomy#Pathology_vs._phylogeny. We could add Mycoplasma to that list, but right now I just want to go out and get a burger. Or maybe keep sipping this can of monster ultra, that feels less complicated. Artoria2e5 🌉 10:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I regret including that conflict allegation in my first reply, I recall that claim was based on some hearsay and it was poor form on my end to propagate that. Please consider that claim retracted unless any evidence backs it up; taxonomy gets a lot more contentious than I would've thought!
I appreciate both of your edits, especially that computational picture. Mgen's my favorite bacterium and this article does a lot more justice to it now :-) MichaelPlasma (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: MIBO 3500 Introduction to Microbiology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilovemilo12, CoffeeShopFantasy, Reejisoo, Atnjjk7, Microscopicpizza (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ae38798, Dentbassist.

— Assignment last updated by Dentbassist (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mycoplasma_genitalium"