Talk:Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssp5762.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

'Aviation fuels'

Removed the 'aviation fuels' category - p. aeruginosa can grow in jet fuel but it's misleading to suggest it's a fuel itself. Molly Doonesbury 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection causing death

Mariana Bridi a 20-year-old Brazilian beauty queen - lost her life due to the the contraction of a urinary tract infection caused by the drug resistant bacteria bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Initially the young model and Miss World finalist was diagnosed with having kidney stones - and was hospitalised in late December 2008 - but she was re-admitted on January 3 in septic shock and life-threatening low blood pressure. Doctors pumped the latest most potent antibiotic drugs into her but could not stem the infection - and were forced to amputate first her feet then her hands - in an attempt to save her life - but tragically on Saturday 24 January 2009 Briidi lost her battle with the infection and died. [1]

Treatment

In the discussion re:treatment of P. aeruginosa, the article lists piperacillin and ticarcillin as ureidopenicillins that can be used for treatment. While both are in fact antipseudomonal penicillins, ticarcillin is a technically a carboxypenicillin and not a ureidopenicillin, like piperacillin. They could be listed together under the phrase antipseudomonal penicllins or separately under their penicillin classes (carboxypenicllin vs. ureidopenicillin). Doripenem could also be added to the list of carbapenems with activity againsts P. aeruginosa SquidBrandon (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

If anyone has access to a suitable picture, but lacks the wikipedia skills to add to the main page, please add it here so a wikipedia-skilled person can put it into the page. Thanks. --Drevicko (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has had an incorrect picture for almost 2 years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.76.34 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Will somebody PLEASE fix the picture? It is not a representative picture of P. aeruginosa, nor is it XLD agar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.76.34 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that nobody has fixed this, and its been months since I suggested this correction. I'd do it, but I lack the wikipedia skills to edit the picture in the article, so could somebody get to it?

I don't know how to fix this, but the picture is horribly wrong. It does not resemble P. aeruginosa, which is motile and has a distinct metallic sheen, nor is the media correct (says XLD, looks like BAP).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.136.206 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Prevention

I inserted a section on prevention; I am no expert on pseudomonas and I hope that someone with more knowledge can add more useful information. Although I'm no advocate of probiotics in general, this was the only thing that I could find. The 2004 CDC Guideline for the prevention of ventilator-acquired pneumonia addresses how to clean the equipment to prevent Legionella, but doesn't specifically mention how to disinfect for pseudomonas. Pseudomonas is listed on the Medicare "Never" list, as if it was common knowledge how to prevent this infection; PLEASE insert some relevant information if you have it.....I can't find much.doctorwolfie (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For a topical infection, a doctor recommended keeping the area dry. A note on webmd.com states "These bacteria like moist environments, such as hot tubs and swimming pools, where they can cause a skin rash or swimmer's ear." (3rd paragraph under "Who gets this infection?" (2nd section) ). Drevicko (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sterilization via Bleach. If it can kill the HIV/AIDS virus, it should kill this. Or colloidal silver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.165.13 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily by injection

The article says that every antibiotic used against P. aeruginosa must be administered by injection. This is not always the case: my mother had a P. aeruginosa infection under her fingernails, which was cured first by removing her fingernails, then applying antibiotics topically on her nail beds. Devil Master 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Article edited to reflect this information.--Gak 10:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

I believe there is a possible copyright violation in the paragraph preceding reference 11, as it is talking about our studies, if nothing else it implies OR. If it isn't changed soon, I'll list it as a possible copyright violation. Terri G 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure looks like a basic cut-and-paste to me.... I've pulled it from the article. If you're game, I'll take a stab at a much shorter synopsis - one-to-two sentences, no direct quotes. Thoughts? -- MarcoTolo 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Follow-up). The offending edit was added by a user (Basicdesign) who appears to be inactive now - last edit was 8 November 2006. I've dropped them a note anyway in case they reappear. -- MarcoTolo 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, copied wrong file - P. aeruginosa. Please see my note at User talk:Terri G. Thanks. Basicdesign (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

medicine

what kind of medicine need to the Pseudomonas aeruginosa???

What do you mean, and please sign your posts. 16:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikospatras (talk • contribs)

Small error?

I didn't change anything, but I believe where it says "Definitive clinical identification of P. aeruginosa often includes identifying the production of both pyocyanin and fluorescein as well as its ability to grow at 42°C", that "and fluorescein" should be removed. Fluorescein is common to many types of Pseudomonas, not just aeruginosa. I also found that in Sherris Medical Micro, it says P. aeruginosa is clinically defined as making pyocyanin and growing at 42 degrees (no mention of fluorescein being clinically useful). BruceD270 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

there appears to be a missing verb in the second sentence of the paragraph on pathogenesis. 'p. aeruginosa uses the virulence factor exotoxin A to (?) adp ribosylate eukaryotic------. To what? produce? inhibit? antagonize? oxidize? methylate? lyse? unfortunately, i'm neither a microbiologist nor a biochemist, so somebody else has to fill in the blank.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No missing. "ADP-ribosylate" is the verb, or you may understand as "to inhibit eukaryotic elongation factor 2 by ADP-ribosylation." --Y tambe (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

got it. i should have realized as soon as i typed 'methylate' that 'ribosylate' was a verb here. domo arigato gozaimasu.Toyokuni3 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant?

in the resistance section, what is meant by 'p. aeruginosa is a highly relevant opportunistic pathogen'.relevant? just asking.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scent

I added tortilla-like scent right alongside the grape scent. Believe it or not, in Central America this is how P. Aeruginosa is taught - and strangely enough, the smell of fake grape is the same as freshly-cooked tortilla.--Cpt ricard (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What a stupid article

This is the problem with wikipedia. I have no idea what this article is about. It reads like a scientific journal which could only be realistically understood by people with doctorates in medicine. Why can't there just be a heading which says "What happens when someone is infected" and then describing what the symptoms and repercussions are? It doesn't mention anywhere in the article that an infection with this bacteria can be fatal. I realise that the information in the article is (most likely) accurate and useful but Jesus Christ why can't we make it useful for a layman? Nambio (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, does the new intro help ? Velela (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is fantastic. Many Thanks. I wish every article should have a "layman" introduction because sometimes its impossible to understand something unless it is within your particular academic discipline... Nambio (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

real world "layman" example of how dangerous this infection can be, there is a very sad story today, that a brazilian beauty queen contracted a bladder infection with this bacteria, was initially misdiagnosed with kidney stones, and has now suffered amputation of both hands and feet. She still may not survive.I wont change the article but the link is below. Someone who knows what they are doing might add or link,,,http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24946627-5012767,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.74.162 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the link. Unfortunately many people die with Pseudomonas infections implicated in their deaths. I am not convinced that being a beauty queen makes one death more notable than any others, sad though they all are. Velela (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a limit to how dumbed-down we can make the article and have it still be useful. 14:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.134.141 (talk)

I'm just a nurse and I think this was an easy read. I can suggest that more pictures and more infection control measures be added to this page. Example: What manifestations will I see in the clinical setting e.g discharge, rash, wound appearance? At which point is it airborne, etc? Very useful info here though. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.165.13 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Vote on inclusion of particular notable cases

There are no case histories of treatment discussed in the article. The recent notable case of Mariana Bridi da Costa has been included, and deleted, by various editors. Let's vote here for Keep or Delete:

• Keep. My vote, I think it's a good idea to have case histories, in particular focussing on the effficacy or inefficacy of particular antibiotic treatments in practice, and what caused a treatment to fail in case of failure. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The publicity seems to be only generated because she was a beauty queen. Many people die every year from sepsis caused by Pseudomonas, many of them undoubtedly equally or more notable than a Brazilian beauty queen. Keeping panders to the cult of celebrity and suggests that women who are judged to be attractive (usually by men) are somehow more important than those who are judged to be less attractive. This is undoubtedly why the press picked it up. Do we here in the press of ... unattractive male microbiologist dies of Pseudomonas... ? No of course we don't. Maintaining an entry for reasons of male chauvinism seems a particularly bad reason for inclusion. Velela (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What other case histories can you propose? Recall that everything on Wikipedia needs a reference. Aside from the beauty queen aspect, this woman suffered a course of treatment that included both amputations and total failure of available antibiotics. Can you point to other similar well-documented cases? Erxnmedia (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't propose any case histories and I wouldn't propose any case histories. Everyone, even Brazilian beauty queens, have a right to privacy and one of the most sacrosanct privacies is that between a patient and his/her physician or doctor. Unless an individual makes a public statement about their condition, then their medical history should remain private - Wikipedia is not the gutter press. So if you look at Pancreatic cancer, there are no case histories. Conversely at Testicular cancer that are a number of recoveries listed all of which have been made public by the sufferers themselves. For a bacterial infection look at Tetanus - all the cases listed are for people who died more than 50 years ago. In this particular case we have no informed consent from the sufferer, we have no corroboration of diagnosis, just the press reporting verbal comments from family members or friends. Thus we have no reliable evidence as to cause, no informed consent and no value in the recital. Velela (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is value in the recital because specific outcomes increase public awareness of

1. the individual potential danger and
2. the need for more research.

For example, for pancreatic cancer, recent famous cases include Randy Pausch, Steve Jobs and Patrick Swayze. None of these gentlemen are models, they all have suffered, and their suffering is instructive with respect to their particular illnesses. Randy Pausch was additionally notable in that he kept a blog of his treatments and their outcomes.

We have a basic difference of opinion about what is notable and should be mentioned in medical issues. Biologists and doctors may tend to agree with you on inclusion of a particular famous case in an article about a medical topic. However, Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and what is permissible in Wikipedia may be different than what is permissible in a biology text or medical journal article.

Erxnmedia (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I Disagree - all those men quoted above who have suffered with Pancreatic cancer took the decision to inform the public of their condition. In this case however, we do not have informed consent of the sufferer which is reason enough to delete. This article mentions that the condition is potentially fatal and can cause sepsis. That alone should alert the reader to the dangers inherent in this organism colonising living human tissue. Using an example like this seems to take a vicarious interest in something that would be sad but unremarkable if it happened to any one of the great majority of human-kind. As to alerting people to the need for further research?? Sorry but that is so thin a reason - you could add those words to every article about a disease and be right every time and still not justify in any way the inclusion of unconsented case histories. Velela (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The late Ms. Bridi is not notable for her achievements; even the Portuguese Wikipedia did not have an article on her before her untimely and sad death. The media attention spent on this case is somehow based on the perception that the tragic death of a young woman is more tragic if she happens to be beautiful. Soon, however, this case will be out of the news and the public eye and forgotten, except by her family and friends, and mentioning it in the article will then not add value. Not coincidentally, on four of the five Wikipedias that have an article on the person, it has been nominated for deletion. 88.233.38.17 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Velela's argument, made on many pages, seems to be made of his/her personal opinions about beauty queens, as the user's arguments always bring it up in a patronising way. Velela is upset that the press has reported extensively about the death of a "beauty queen" and not about similar cases involving "unattractive" people. I'd like to point out that the argument is moot and based on a lack of understanding about Wikipedia's policies. We are interested in notability, not moral standards. I'm sure we can all agree that it is unfortunate and unfair that the death of a beauty queen gets more attention that the death of an "unattractive male microbiologist", but that is completely irrelevant. The core fact is that the death of Mariana Bridi has been covered by CNN, BBC, Corriere della Sera, O Globo and many other leading news channel and newspapers throughout the world. The case is thus notable and that is what we are interested in, not Velela's thoughts about how the world should look.JdeJ (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  It appears to me that you are misreading Velela's argument, which is simply that the reason the media paid so much attention to this case has nothing to do with the prior notability of the victim; it is solely that she was a beautiful young woman, as if her beauty made her death more tragic than if she had been plain-looking. In this respect it is similar to the MWWS. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Just for the record, my edits are on two articles only plus a comment with no opinion stated at one forum - is this many articles? I think not. Secondly your interpretation of my comments are wholly erroneous. I do not re-interpret your arguments and I certainly don't need a third party (incorrectly) interpreting mine. This is not about personal opinions, it is about rational logic and the making of a reliable, balanced on-line Encyclopaedia and not about opinions and the fashions of the press and media. As to patronising, I would be interested to see where. However I do acknowledge that I can be held accountable for having moral standards, but I don't think that I need to apologise for that. I can only wish that such standards were more commonplace - and that is a personal opinion which is not patronising but can be regarded as being ironic if you wish. Velela (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete; it does not belong in this article. --Una Smith (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete; This is trivia. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

More comments here: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Medicine#Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections - ethics issues. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Uses

I notice this article is pretty much all about the medical side of P. aeruginosa, but some strains of the bacteria are used in bioremediation, ie cleaning oil slicks. I will be adding this to this article, but wondered if it should be a separate article. There is a general bioremediation article but this doesn't (atm - I'll be adding to that as well) mention P. Aeruginosa at all.

Thoughts before I embark on this would be welcome. Fork me (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Phosphorous limitation related pathogenicity

Decent article, and worth keeping, but the text needed cleanup and clarification bad, so I did. 65.27.134.141 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Mistake for

Please include a list of additional diagnosis that are commonly mistaken for Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. This would be helpful when trying to do a self diagnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.217.33 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Use as a Model Organism for Study of Evolution

P. aeruginosa is very commonly used to study the evolution of social behaviours like cooperation and spite. I would go so far as to call it a model organism - there are quite a few lab groups that are, if not dedicated to P. aeruginosa, at least have a keen interest.

I'll have a go at adding a section about this - I'm sure someone will have written a review paper about P. aeruginosa's use in the study of evolution so I'll dig that out and write it up in wiki style.

I just wondered whether anyone had anything to say about this idea, whether anyone has anything to add?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstils (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Phage Therapy

I've moved the bit about Phage therapy to a separate experimental heading. It is by no means a widely accepted treatment and isn't even approved in most Western countries. The quoted article is a single case report and does not reflect general consensus. --142.76.1.62 (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Genes Involved in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilm-Specific Resistance to Antibiotics

Will fit into the antibiotic resistance section. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

    *Merge Frank Layden (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge It doesn't make sense as its own article. Is there an amount of time we should wait? Otherwise I'll try to integrate this info into the article. Ajpolino (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Page now redirects to hereAjpolino (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Antibiotic Resistance Paragraph

The author of this section should go back and add sources to the first paragraph under "Antibiotic Resistance and Treatment." Upon research, I found a lot of errors in this section (AdeABC is an efflux pump system in a species of Acinetobacter, not in Pseudomonas aeruginosa), in addition to grammar issues. --Shahrukhkhan1968

New drug that outperforms traditional therapies in the laboratory

Below I quote verbatim sections from an article published on 18 May 2016 on the cystic fibrosis website cfroundtable.com:

The potential drug therapy relies on an engineered cationic antimicrobial peptide, or “eCAP,” which is a synthetic and more efficient version of naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides that form a first line of defense against infections in humans. Developed by co-author Ronald C. Montelaro, Ph.D., professor and co-director of Pitt’s CVR, the eCAP works by “punching into” bacteria and viruses, thereby destroying them.

Dr. Bomberger and her team tested the eCAP in the laboratory by growing biofilms of drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria on the cells that line the airway and then treating them for one hour with the eCAP. The eCAP was 50 times more effective at fighting the biofilm than traditional treatment, but did not harm the airway cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidionite (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The potential drug therapy relies on an engineered cationic antimicrobial peptide, or “eCAP,” which is a synthetic and more efficient version of naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides that form a first line of defense against infections in humans. Developed by co-author Ronald C. Montelaro, Ph.D., professor and co-director of Pitt’s CVR, the eCAP works by “punching into” bacteria and viruses, thereby destroying them.

This seems relevant but it would be better if an informed person decides.

Obsidionite (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Obsidionite! Thanks for bringing this up here on the talk page. It's an interesting article, however in general we try to avoid using primary sources here. Lots of stuff gets reported in the primary literature, but then never gets mentioned again (maybe other groups try eCAPs and they don't work as reported. Maybe they only work in cell culture but not in animals. Who knows). Instead we wait until a secondary source (i.e. a review in the case of biomed literature) is published wherein an expert reviews the primary evidence and gives his/her interpretation. Then we report the secondary source conclusions. This, of course, means we will always be a bit behind the cutting-edge, but that's ok. We are in no rush here. Thanks again, and I hope you decide to stick around and keep working on microbiology-related articles here! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Treatment for skin (including ear) infections: keeping dry

My doctor suggested keeping the area dry as a good treatment of skin infections, and I've found it to be effective - at least it reduces symptoms to the point that is seems to go away. Spending a day in the pool however causes a relapse ):

Anyway, if anyone knows of research into keeping dry and/or salt baths for skin infections, please add it to the page.

--Drevicko (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

History

I think a section on the discovery and implications of P. aeruginosa throughout history would be good information to add. This article mostly focuses on research and clinical aspects of the bacterium. Thoughts? Ssp5762 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add some information on the history, epidemiology, and transmission of this bacterium. Some information I'm thinking about adding is who discovered P. aeruginosa and how, some facts on epidemiology, and how P. aeruginosa is transmitted and cause infection. I found some sources that I listed below. Can you tell me what you think about the sources? Thanks!

Lister PD, Wolter DJ, Hanson ND. Antibacterial-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Clinical Impact and Complex Regulation of Chromosomally Encoded Resistance Mechanisms. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2009;22(4):582-610. doi:10.1128/CMR.00040-09.

Blanc D., Francioli P, Zanetti G. Molecular Epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the Intensive Care Units – A Review. The Open Microbiology Journal. 2007;1:8-11. doi:10.2174/1874285800701010008.

References

Ssp5762 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Were does this mention the topic?

"especially neonatal infection,"

?

References

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nylon digestion

@Jytdog: Is there a requirement that anything posted to this page be restricted to endogenous activity? Nessie (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If I see a classification on something, I expect that to be something prominent about it - an essential, defining characteristic. (that is what WP:CAT says as well). Many bacteria can be driven to live off many different kinds of things, given enough cycles to evolve; that a lab was able to drive p aeruginosa to live off plastic is not a defining aspect of this species, in my view. Perhaps others will differ here. Thanks for opening a discussion in any case.Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, the information on p aeruginosa digesting plastic should remain on the is article, as article text does not depend on the category criteria.

As far as the Category:Organisms breaking down plastic criteria, i would say it is clearly defined. One could argue that any organism in this category has been artificially driven to live off plastic, as plastic is not a natural product. Some included species are using pre-existing enzymes to digest the man-made material, others have been driven to evolve new ones. The category is small, and I don't think worth splitting into 'Organisms breaking down plastic without any influence from humankind' and 'Organisms breaking down plastic as a result of humankind'. Nessie (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Shifting a bit... Are you aware of whether this bacteria is actually used this way, or if it was just an academic paper or two? If only the latter it is not worth mentioning in the article (there are many, many papers doing many, many things with bugs). If this is actually commercial (in other words, done regularly) then that should be discussed in the article and it should be categorized as you suggested.Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I just did some looking and came across this good, and very recent, review: Pathak, Vinay Mohan (23 March 2017). "Review on the current status of polymer degradation: a microbial approach". Bioresources and Bioprocessing. 4: 15. doi:10.1186/s40643-017-0145-9. ISSN 2197-4365.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). Seems that this is not commercial yet, but there have been lots of papers on the use of this bug in bioremediation.... I added a bit on that. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

New motility section

Pseudomonas is a widespread model organism for motility, particularly twitching motility (though it also uses a flagellum to swim in liquid). I recently wrote an article on twitching (here) and I thought it would be useful to write a short section on its roles in this organism.

If there are no objections I'll go ahead and do it. Probably there won't be, but I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedian etiquette :) Psuedomoaner (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Pets

Can this be transmitted to other people or animals in your household and can an animal get it and transmit it to humans and other animal? 68.58.39.14 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly Wikipedia does not offer medical advice of any sort. Secondly this is probably not a logical question to pose as you very probably have millions of these bacteria on your skin as do any mammalian pets that you have. So, if the question is "Do I share my P. aeruginosa with my pets" , then the answer is probably yes. If the question is "Is this significant or important"? then probably only your doctor or veterinarian can provide an answer. However, my guess is that you can probably draw your own conclusions from the information in the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Pyoverdine is yellow

Despite the name, P. aeruginosa pyoverdine (or rather, pyoverdineS) without the presence of pyocyanin are yellow. A very distinct, fluorescent yellow. I know this for certain as I culture pyocyanin-negative, pyoverdine positive P. aeruginosa frequently (NCTC 10332 is a good example) and it stains the agar and broth an unmistakeable yellow (with a distinct blue fluorescence under UV). Yet bizarrely, literature on pyoverdines - on which there are many - do not seem to note colour. Just throwing this in there... though I would also appreciate any advice on how to overcome this minor colour issue. Would a citation of absorbance maxima be acceptable or is this too technical? 146.191.95.1 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually this might be acceptable? https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-020-05534-1

Even shows a picture of pyoverdine, pyoverdine+pyocyanin and pyocyanin alone. Does not directly state the yellowness of pyoverdine though! 146.191.95.1 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Microbiology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HermiaStudy (article contribs).

Identification Changed to Classification

Reorganized the previous table under Identification and changed the subheading to "Classification". All the previous information was moved to the new table and a few more tests were added to the table. Also, a few sentences were added to the discussion of trouble with identification of the species mentioning the variations that can be found in colony morphology. HermiaStudy (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)