This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
As I have stated above (section 1), I have been working slowly - but surely - on revising this article. Today I have added my input to a rewrite of the introduction. I have more text under construction for the paragraphs following based on the draft structure that I outlined above (comments welcome). I see that the Microorganism page is undergoing some collaborative rewrite effort so it will be interesting to see what they come up with given the overlap that already exists with that article and the Bacteria article.
There is a fair bit of discussion here on the Talk: Bacteria page and I have tried to incorporate the comments that I have read here. The intro is aimed at being more general and able to function as a stand alone description/definition of Bacteria. The intro also outlines the most important of the areas that I think should be the focus in the article.
After all of the discussion about nomenclature of Bacteria I have added the short paragraph on this subject. No doubt the article should contain a more comprehensive section covering these issues in the body text.
I am looking forward to your comments. Please state major objections here on the talk page before ripping up my draft. :-) -- Azaroonus 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi All, I continue with a new installment of my contribution to the article. Comments welcome.-- Azaroonus 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Eubacteria redirects here, however there is a big difference between eubacteria and bacteria as a whole. I think Eubacteria should be a seperate article.
Researchers watched mutations take place in near real time, with surprising results.
"This straightforward approach to the study of experimental evolution can be used as a tool for discovery and analysis, and could even be used to discover bacterial capabilities that would benefit humankind in a variety of ways," said Herring. [1]
As per the Good Article review on this article, it has been delisted by a 2 to 0 vote. Primarily references are the problem, the unreferenced template up top is the first indication, and User:Lincher warned editors here way back in June to add some references, yet that never seems to of happened much. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8 Homestarmy 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've shortened this section. TimVickers 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The history of bacteriology section is not really specific to bacteria, rather than microbiology. There might be good reason for a separate "bacterial diseases" article--I am thinking of the textbooks with this all put in a second part.
Perhaps the metabolism section should be fuller, with a table. Most readers of this won't know any biochemistry. Since these distinctions are so critical to the overall understanding, it might be best to give each of them a subsection, and not rely on the taxobox. I think there are to many refs. At this general level it should rarely be necessary to refer to a primary article rather than a review, except for the very latest developments. I'm partic. bothered by 23, 26, 27*,33, 36, 46, 48, 57, 63, 69, 73, 80, 86, 88, 89*, 93* * indicates ones that i feel most strongly about. I'd personally be reluctant to give refs to journal articles in rarely held journals, like A.vL, for such a general article.
And--but this is a personal crusade--I would indicate specifically the parts taken from the 2 mentioned sources. DGG 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the link to wikitravel in the sister-project box at the end of the article. It's quite silly to have it there. I thought it was a joke actually... Witt y lama 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As of 2/Dec2006 this article is 82kb in size. I think we simply can't fit anything more in here without removing material at the same time. TimVickers 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does the source text of the taxobox include the kingdom Monera? It is not shown in the article and is an obsolete taxon. -- Eleassar my talk 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is currently a candidate for today's featured article. Show support here [2] Buc 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow mindblowing. -- Filll 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
TB is not the most common bacterial disease. I doubt it is even the most common deadly disease, since the biggest killer is probably food poisoning among under fives. Sad mouse 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job getting the WHO data. Adding fatal certainly makes it better, but I'm still not entirely convinced that TB is the leading bacterial cause of fatality. TB is easily the leading bacterial killer in adults, but relatively few children die from TB, with more from diarrhoeal (which is split between multiple species and also viruses, I agree) and respiratory diseases (mostly staph). Looking at the spreadsheet, respiratory infections aside from TB kill twice as many people as TB (with an inverse distribution curve, with the young and old being killed). Off the top of my head, staph probably constitutes around half of respiratory infectious deaths, more in the elderly and the young in third world countries. From the data in the spreadsheet we can't tell, because they don't break it down into pathogen, but I would be hesitant to make the claim that TB is the biggest killer without such data (a claim that is not made in the TB article). Sad mouse 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Since TB can also be classified as a respiratory infection, I re-worded to state that respiratory infections are most common, with TB as a leading example. Hope this solves the problem. TimVickers 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? Wouldn't that mean that 9/10 of what constitutes a human is bacteria? And if you wanted to analyze a human cell, you'd have 9 chances out of 10 to pick up a bacterium instead? Devil Master 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You may not have access to the reference on line, here is the relevant quote:
Hope this makes things more clear to you. TimVickers 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Bacteria is today's (January 20th) Featured Article! I am so proud of everyone who helped to make this article great! A special thank-you to Tim, for his amazing leadership and commitment! Kudos! Adenosine talk 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised to find no reference here (or anywhere on wikipedia, unless my search skills fail me) to VNC, the concept of viable but nonculturable bacteria.... [3] -- Graham talk/ mail/ e 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm an engineering trying to find some facts about bacteria. Does anyone know where can I find information about physical properties of bacteria like size, volume, density, radius, etc? I've been trying to look for information in different journals really hard but haven't been lucky yet ...
Thanks for the help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josegc ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
i really like thsi site it works really swell ofor skool projects!!!
If you go to this site, http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/19, you will find a paper Mr C-S published in July of last year. I didn't understand most of it, but what I did understand really changed my views on a 3-domain system and the monophyletic-ness of Bacteria. Take a look. Werothegreat 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't say how many species of bacteria are known, or believed, to exist. Andy Mabbett 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Added to "Classification and identification" section. TimVickers 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that some Bacteria, such as the Streptomycetes, were considered multicellular. If this view is controversial, shouldn't the article at least take note of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.187.202 ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Aren't germs synonymous to bacteria? Why doesn't searching for germs redirect me to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.12.38.25 ( talk) 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
congratulations!!!!(2 u all who made this wikipedia page) this page is very good it helped me a lot
Seriously. This is the best article everrr. I am so impressed, i cant express. I wish there was something more than featured. LOVELY!!! Luxurious.gaurav 11:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
With all of the products humans use against bacteria, is it possible that certain bacteria species could be building up an immunity to anti-bacteria products (such as Lysol wipes and sprays)? If this does happen is it something people (scientists specializing in anti-bacteria) could find out right away or will we just continue to spray and wipe for no reason?-- 71.158.216.141 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer, I don't want to just go ahead and change things without discussion, but I would argue strongly that the qualification that bacteria lack membrane-bound organelles is no longer justifiable. Two examples, one clear and the second ambiguous, come to mind immediately, though there are others.
-The clear example: some planctomycetes contain anammoxosomes, which are membrane-bound compartments housing a special set of metabolic reactions (not to mention the DNA/ribosome-containing compartment within which anammoxosomes lie). In fact, as this is alluded to within the article, the statement that bacteria lack such structures causes an internal contradiction.
-The more ambiguous example: the magnetosomes of certain proteobacteria could be regarded as such, as they are a membrane-enclosed space with special contents (magnetic crystals) and special membrane protein content. The only ambiguity is that each magnetosome has a junction that connects its contents with the periplasm, which in my view doesn't disqualify it from being an organelle (in the sense that a gap junction doesn't cause two animal cells to be defined as one, nor do plasmodesmata cause a plant to be regarded as a single cell).
In any event, I would like to remove that qualification and perhaps add something to the article about bacterial organelles, within the Intracellular Structures section. I await comment.... MicroProf 04:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates declares that scrollbars are not appropriate for the ref section. See its talk page (search for "Scrolling Reference Lists") for discussion.-- SallyForth123 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Ibn Khatima and Ibn al-Khatib wrote of infectious diseases being caused contagious entities that enter the human body" should read ".. caused by .." .. I'm new here and this article has a lock on it so I didn't want to attempt the edit myself. Cheers, Kevin 70.52.216.160 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What are the most common bacteria? If you know, please help! I need this for a science fair project, and for a paper DUE NOV. 5!!!!! Please, please, PLEASE help!!!!!
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding this to my project now. Thanks!
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The project was going to be too much work, I had to switch. :(
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please help on the prostatitis page? Could someone please summarize the medical literature from MEDLINE and elsewhere on "chronic prostatitis and bacteria" - thank you. Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia works by building consensus..... The primary method of determining consensus is discussion...." ReasonableLogicalMan 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here because I heard someone claim antioxidants kill bacteria. I can't find (or decipher?) the answer, so I'm guessing they don't kill bacteria. Would someone add this is it's actually true? -- geekyßroad . meow? 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would very much like to see discussion of the hypothesis that the total bacterial biomass on Earth may exceed that of all the rest of life combined.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1996
"Not only does the Earth contain more bacterial organisms than all others combined (scarcely surprising, given their minimal size and mass); not only do bacteria live in more places and work in a greater variety of metabolic ways; not only did bacteria alone constitute the first half of life's history, with no slackening in diversity thereafter; but also, and most surprisingly,
total bacterial biomass (even at such minimal weight per cell) may exceed all the rest of life combined...." [4] (I have added emphasis)
Stephen Jay Gould, "Planet of the Bacteria," Washington Post Horizon, 1996, 119 (344): H1.
This essay was adapted from Full House, New York: Harmony Books, 1996, pp. 175-192.
Also "Bacterial Biovolume and Biomass Estimations" by Gunnar Bratbak Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 June; 49(6): 1488–1493. [5]
"Both bacterial biomass and bacterial production in aquatic ecosystems may thus have been seriously underestimated."
Thanks. --
Writtenonsand (
talk)
13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and this says prokaryotes in total are about 50%, so I added "much of" rather than choosing a precise figure.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)I have to decided to remove this early hypothesizing that such things as microrganisms existed. First of all neither of these early claims resemble in any way that microorganisms existed. Worlds like foul earthly bodies and contagious entities does not in any way mean someone was talking about microbes. I mean were these foul contagious entities made of what? solids, liquids, a combination. Basically by saying these early people were speculating on the existence of microbes is fallacious since one is just amplying a modern interpretation to ancient words. Essentialy one is just assuming, ohh contagious entities, well they must be talking about microbes, but thats just retrospect since we now know such things exist. This early section is best kept in the germ theory page. Lastl, but not least, associating microbes with disease is foolish since its not true, not all microbes cause disease. Lastly this article is about a specific microbe, bacteria so it makes even less sense to put these early speculative ideas, since its not clear if even these ideas were about microoganisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
lets put it this way, bacteria has a specific charactersitics, so it makes no sense to be writting about wild early speculation on microorganisms, if thats even what was being discussed. a prefect example to illustrate what am saying is this. Would it make sense to, on the history of the electron article, to write about early indian and greek philosophy about atoms. No it wouldnt becuase the electron is something specific, just as bacteria, and this article is specifically about bacteria sooo. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tomasz Prochownik (
talk •
contribs)
08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
i think this new revised section on the history is okay with everyone, give me a shout on any comments or suggestions.
What a fantastic article. Many thanks to all those who contributed, excellent work. FQ1513 ( talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this might be the best wikipedia article i've ever read...
The only little thingie I encountered is that the text says "Bacteria were first observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek", whilst the picture says Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.139.66 ( talk) 14:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
how do bacteria make sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.181.65 ( talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The following links need disambig:
butyrate
chlamydia
fimbria
respiratory infection
rhizosphere
stationary phase
Randomblue (
talk)
21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is one of my favorite articles! :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The first image has x15k magnification, as indicated on the image itself. But the image note says 25000x. Why the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.226.87 ( talk) 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, So I seem to notice a few problems in the article but since I'M just registered as of today I can't edit to the article so I'D like to point out that the word yogurt is spelled wrong. If this is a different spelling and I don't know of it please inform me. The word in the article is spelled yoghurt, is this correct? Toiletvodka ( talk) 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI, the article on the Archaea is up for FA. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get why bacterium redirects to bacteria and not the other way around. According to the naming conventions, article subjects are always in singular, except for a few obvious exceptions, such as The Beatles, etc. I would prefer to switch the redirect. What do you people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.81.182 ( talk) 07:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Bacterium currently redirects to Bacteria and is incorrectly tagged as {{ R from plural}} - should be {{ R to plural}}. GregorB ( talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What's more harmful, bacteria? or worms? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JricHwang (
talk •
contribs)
20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Since this article refers to the kingdom Bacteria, the word "bacteria" should be capitalised and italicised throughout, as per convention in microbiology journals. The same goes for Archaea and Eukarya. Milady ( talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
i have to look up makes is expamles but this website doesnt help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.57.63 ( talk) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Origin and early evolution
Further information: Timeline of evolution
The ancestors of modern bacteria were single-celled microorganisms that were the first forms of life to develop on earth, about 4 billion years ago. For about 3 billion years, all organisms were microscopic, and bacteria and archaea were the dominant forms of life.[22][23] Although bacterial fossils exist, such as stromatolites, their lack of distinctive morphology prevents them from being used to examine the past history of bacterial evolution, or to date the time of origin of a particular bacterial species. However, gene sequences can be used to reconstruct the bacterial phylogeny, and these studies indicate that bacteria diverged first from the archaeal/eukaryotic lineage.[24] The most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea was probably a hyperthermophile that lived about 2.5 billion–3.2 billion years ago.[25][26]
Bacteria were also involved in the second great evolutionary divergence, that of the archaea and eukaryotes. Here, eukaryotes resulted from ancient bacteria entering into endosymbiotic associations with the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, which were themselves possibly related to the Archaea.[27][28] This involved the engulfment by proto-eukaryotic cells of alpha-proteobacterial symbionts to form either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes, which are still being found in all known Eukarya (sometimes in highly reduced form, e.g. in ancient "amitochondrial" protozoa). Later on, an independent second engulfment by some mitochondria-containing eukaryotes of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants. There are even some algal groups known that clearly originated from subsequent events of endosymbiosis by heterotrophic eukaryotic hosts engulfing a eukaryotic algae that developed into "second-generation" plastids.[29][30]
Uh...again! How is that neutral?!
66.74.230.117 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Some people don't believe bacteria even exist. Should we scrap the whole article for the sake of "neutrality"? Some people don't believe people actually exist. Should we put a disclaimer on your forehead that you may not exist? Evolution is overwhelmingly favored within the scientific community and this is a scientific article - it's not split between pro- and anti-evolutionists as you see it. Additionally, bacteria themselves are an excellent example of evolution as evidenced through bacterial resistance, among other things. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
155.37.215.145 (
talk)
13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So, if evolution is true and bacteria are "an excellent example of evolution." Explain how did the Flagellum evolve? :D Project Gnome ( talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Give an unskilled man all the components to make a analog watch, and see how long it takes him to make it perfectly..that is if he lives long enough to do so...
Note: I'm not trying to cause any trouble...I just want them to think for themselves... Project Gnome ( talk) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The text says "There are approximately ten times as many bacterial cells as human cells in the human body, with large numbers of bacteria on the skin and in the digestive tract.[6] Although the vast majority of these bacteria are rendered harmless by the protective effects of the immune system, and a few are beneficial, some are pathogenic bacteria and cause infectious diseases, including cholera, syphilis, anthrax, leprosy and bubonic plague." To me, this seems to imply that the bacteria that cause cholera, syphilis, anthrax, leprosy and bubonic plague are to be routinely found living on or in the human body. Surely that is incorrect? Or surely it needs some more clarification? Invertzoo ( talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Amazing article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srivastav.ankur ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not happy with E. coli's being included as a pathogen in the new diagram. Second only to anaerobes, it is the commonest commensal in the gut. It should list the pathogenic serovar. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. Where are the, all too common, throat infections, Group A streptococci for example, and in our poor ears, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is even a more common infection. And, as I said on the virus talk page, I find the absence of genitalia too prudish for a modern encylopedia. Graham Colm Talk 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
PPS. Staphylococcus aureus is not a common cause of infections of the eye. This bacterium most often causes skin boils and abscesses, but eye infections are most often caused by Haemophilus influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis. This diagram does not belong in a featured article. Sorry. Graham Colm Talk 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the "Domain" the same as "Kingdom"? There are actually two kingdoms of bacteria - Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. I just wasn't sure. Thanks. Geeky Math ( talk) 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse my English because I am not native English speaker. I just had to create login name to point out this mistake: "Bacteria" is a singular form i.e. one would say "I see one bacteria". Plural form of word "Bacteria" is "Bacteriae", therefore domain name is Bacteriae i.e. one would say "I see five bacteriae". AE reads like "e" in word "elephant" with this exception that "e" in word "bacteriae" is long "e". There is no such word as a "bacterium" that reffers to the organisms taxonomized in domain of Bacteriae. Please do not create articles which convert rigor scientia into scientific pornography. You are insulting students like me (who want to learn) and undermining your own reputation (even in eyes of students who ended their biology education in junior- or high-school). You are passing false information to people. They read these articles and learn information which is wrong and accept it as a true. I lookup things in wikipedia to learn, not to be mislead with false and not elegant, unverified information. If you, athors of articles can not write articles proplerly, I kindly ask you to not do it for the benefit of society and science. If you do not agree with me, please look up Bacteria/Bacteriae in some really decent latin dictionary. :Sincerely, ::Michael Sokolowski
Sorry about the brevity and perhaps my ignorance. I only had a quick look at this article—and I didn't notice it anywhere pointing out that a single bacterium (I mean an individual organism, of any bacterial species) is a single-celled organism. I sure hope I'm right in thinking that each individual organism is only one cell. If indeed an individual bacterial organism has only one cell, and if indeed the article doesn't already say that (preferably in the first paragraph), then it should be added. President Lethe away! President Lethe ( talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Added a short blurb on Vampirococcus, came here to link it in, but I'm apparently too new. Jeweaver ( talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)jeweaver
Just to make sure: There are no quick tests, like dipsticks or some such, that directly test for bacteria and identify a certain type "while-u-wait", are there? The urine dipsticks test for metabolites, and if you want to know which bug it is, you still need a lab, even if PCR might speed things up a bit compared to cultures?-- Diogenes75 ( talk) 09:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The name "Heliobacter pylori" in the "Pathogens" subsection should be in italics, no? 212.84.110.62 ( talk) 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 14:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
According to this section in Prokaryotes, and for example this source, some bacterial populations are beginning to be considered as multicellular organisms. In some colonies they seem to perform a variety of classical multicellular functions, including defense against antagonists, selective gene expression (differentiation), inter-cellular communication via multiple molecular signals, resource exploitation (which cannot be done by individual cells), a primitive "circulatory system", etc. This behavior is shown by a variety of bacteria species, both Gram negative and positive. This topic seems to be focused on Bacteria, yet the Prokaryote article, which covers both Archaea and Bacteria, appears to have more content related to this than the Bacteria article, where all I can find is the brief Communication section, and some Quorum sensing-related aspects in the last paragraph of morphology. It would seem to me that these are not morphological issues, go beyond mere "communication", and deserve a dedicated section focused on the general topic of bacteria multicelluarity, similar to the "Sociality" section in Prokaryotes. Comments? Crum375 ( talk) 02:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so bacterial colonies can defend from antagonists and such. The fact remains that a single cell extracted from such a colony remains viable to survive. The cells are not truly specialized as are those of multicellular organisms. Speaking as a Biology Major, the proper term for this is social (or colonial), but not multicellular. While the functions you refer to are classically multicellular, the more current definition of multicellularity is one where a single extracted cell could not survive in the wild. (Colonized human liver and blood cells survive with enough artificial help not to be considered natural.) The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The phenamanon we've all been referring to in this section is called "quorum sensing," and it's considered a separate category from true multicellularity.
All these sources were cited on Page 450 of Concepts of Genetics (9th Edition), by Klug, Cummings, Spencer, and Palladino. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need this picture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Growing_colony_of_E._coli.jpg) under "Growth and reproduction?" There are a couple of reasons why this picture bothers me. It's not a realistic image to the point that, given only the image, no one would be able to identify it. Next, it's color-coded but the colors only serve to confuse since there is no key or explanation. Finally, it doesn't further my understanding of bacterial growth or reproduction. It doesn't show bacteria growing or reproducing, like a couple of .gif's I have seen nor does it show a stage in growth or reproduction. There are better pictures to show growth than a drawing of a static colony. Occamsrazorwit ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The introduction suggests that bacteria only live on planet Earth. Is this true? Are there no bacteria on the Moon or on Mars, e.g.? 196.215.32.190 ( talk) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)1 Geografiskt läge
The "Origin and early evolution section" says:
"The most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea was probably a hyperthermophile that lived about 2.5 billion–3.2 billion years ago."
It supports this statement by quoting two references:
1. Di Giulio M (2003). "The universal ancestor and the ancestor of bacteria were hyperthermophiles". J Mol Evol 57 (6): 721–30. doi:10.1007/s00239-003-2522-6. PMID 14745541.
2. Battistuzzi FU, Feijao A, Hedges SB (November 2004). "A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land". BMC Evolutionary Biology 4: 44. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-4-44. PMID 15535883.
However, the references do not support this statement. For example, the second article (the one by Battistuzzi and Hedges) says:
Divergence time estimates for the major groups of eubacteria are between 2.5–3.2 billion years ago (Ga) while those for archaebacteria are mostly between 3.1–4.1 Ga. The time estimates suggest a Hadean origin of life (prior to 4.1 Ga), an early origin of methanogenesis (3.8–4.1 Ga), an origin of anaerobic methanotrophy after 3.1 Ga, an origin of phototrophy prior to 3.2 Ga, an early colonization of land 2.8–3.1 Ga, and an origin of aerobic methanotrophy 2.5–2.8 Ga.
What they are saying is that the divergence date for the 3 major groups of eubacteria (Actinobacteria, Deinococcus, and Cyanobacteria) are between 2.5 and 3.2 billion years ago. This is not the same as saying "The most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea was probably a hyperthermophile that lived about 2.5 billion–3.2 billion years ago".
It stands to reason that if the 3 major groups of eubacteria diverged from each other at 2.5-3.2 billion years ago, then eubacteria must have diverged from archea even earlier.
As they say later in the article, this is a guess, since a date for the common ancestor of eubacteria and archaebacteria has not been calculated. There are only various minimum estimates. Their estimates are <4 billion years, as stated here:
"Neither the time for the origin of life, nor the divergence of archaebacteria and eubacteria, was estimated directly in this study. Nonetheless, one divergence within archaebacteria was estimated to be as old as 4.11 Ga (Node P), suggesting even earlier dates for the last common ancestor of living organisms and the origin of life."
In fact, this is reiterated in a more recent publication by the same group. The publication is "The Timetree of Life" by S. Blair Hedges and Sudhir Kumar (Oxford Press). Quoting from this:
"An initial split (~4200 Ma) led to the Superkingdoms Eubacteria and Archaebacteria."
I haven't ever directly edited any Wikipedia page, and am unsure whether this is a good idea for a Wikipedia newbie like me. Therefore, I am putting my comments on the talk page. I hope someone will confirm the details I have provided and correct the article.
Xen1977 ( talk) 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Xenofon
{{
editprotected}}
The following redirects need redirect categories/category parameters added:
#REDIRECT [[Bacteria]]{{R to plural|printworthy}}{{R from move}}
That will subdue the Unprintworthy cat and add the redirect to Category:Printworthy redirects.
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Bacteria]]{{R to talk}}
Thank you in advance for making these code modifications. — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In the modern Darwinian model of evolution, what survival/evolutionary benefit does it confer to the bacteria to produce toxin(s) that kill the host (take your pick: cholera, bubonic plague, etc, etc, etc)? There must be some; the article says that these are very ancient bacteria. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, two good answers. That Optimal virulence article answers my question exactly and I would not have thought to even look for such a title on my own. Dumbass me. Thank you all. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section, "Cellular structure", the term "plasma membrane" is introduced with no explanation: "However, in many photosynthetic bacteria the plasma membrane is highly folded". Is it the same as the "cell membrane" or different? AndreasLotheOpdahl ( talk) 07:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they're the same. I fixed it in the article.
Jojojlj (
talk)
09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Some observations.
Cyanophytes are Bacteria. Under the
three-domain system, all Bacteria are
prokaryotes, but not all prokaryotes are Bacteria (some are
Archaea). We do not add together the number of cyanophytes and the number of prokaryotes to get the number of Bacteria. The source at
http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/number.html gives a figure of 9,278 species of prokaryotes. This would include all Bacteria (including all cyanobateria) and all Archaea. This source from 2006, Staley, James T. (2006 November 29).
"The bacterial species dilemma and the genomic-phylogenetic species concept". Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences. 361 (1475): 1899–1909.
doi:
10.1098/rstb.2006.1914. Retrieved 13 December 2011. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), states that there were then about 5,000 named species of Bacteria and Archaea. A 1990s source I saw stated there were then about 4,000 described species of bacteria (presumably including Archaea). I will change the article back to reflect this. --
Donald Albury
22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just working on a PowerPoint for my high school biology class and noticed an extra open parenthesis '(' in the growth and development section. Since the article was locked, I did not think I could do anything. Thanks and keep up the good work wikipedia!
Axc201 ( talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request for a spelling correction - under the Pathogens section, a sentence in the 3rd paragraph currently reads:
Infections can be prevented by antiseptic measures such as sterilizating the skin prior to piercing it with the needle of a syringe, and by proper care of indwelling catheters.
Please correct "sterilizating" to "sterilizing".
92.30.3.247 ( talk) 12:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
When it said there are about 5×1030 bacteria, I deleted the “five nonillion” and left just the exponent; to avoid long/short scale conflicts; and also because I find it illogical that bi- means two, but billion means (103)3; tri- means three, but trillion means (103)4; quad- means four, but quadrillion means (103)5; etc., an endless chain shift. Okay?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 11:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
In the section on morphology, the article strays into biofilms which is really a behavioral phenomenon rather than a morphological one. And it seems to suggest that quorum sensing and aggregation are more complex behaviors than creating biofilms, when in fact that's how the biofilms form. Also, in biofilms as well as in fruiting bodies, the bacteria similarly cooperate and perform different tasks. The section in the behavior section regarding biofilms looks pretty accurate (I've co-authored a scientific paper on the subject). I suggest we scrap the paragraph about biofilms within morphology, and maybe move some of the content about myxospores into the behavior section (but delete it from the morphology section).
Side note: I also noticed that the periplasmic space (between cell wall and cell membrane) is mentioned before any discussion of cell walls, which is bound to confuse people. And even within the discussion of cell walls, the periplasmic space is never defined.
Another side note: I take issue with the first sentence in the article. "Bacteria constitute a large domain (or kingdom) of prokaryotic microorganisms." They have a domain to themselves; kingdoms are subclassifications within domains. And the layperson who's trying to figure out what is this tiny thing they've heard about and they think it's maybe called bacteria? They'll run away when they read the first sentence of the article!! I don't think we need to introduce the word 'microorganism' yet, and certainly not 'prokaryotic'. Hmm. "Bacteria represent a large domain of single-celled organisms." Even there, organisms might be too much, but better than microorganisms. What do you think?
Jojojlj ( talk) 10:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests that bacteria can live in space and cites a Nasa article. Unfortunately, if you read the Nasa article, you will see that they say bacteria can live in spaceships, not space. Just thought I would point this out.
Dishione ( talk) 03:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
1. The Wikipedia article on archaea says they are "prokaryotes, meaning that they have no cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells." The present article on bacteria says that bacteria are prokaryotes that "rarely harbour membrane-bound organelles." This is confusing. Are there bacteria that harbour membrane-bound organelles? If yes, the archaea article is wrong, and the phrase quoted here should be corrected. If no, the text in this article containing "rarely harbour membrane-bound organelles" should be modified to be clearer. The Wikipedia article on prokaryote says that "prokaryotes are a group of organisms whose cells lack a membrane-bound nucleus". This sounds like the archaea text is misleading. I'm confused.
2. Is there a succinct summary of the difference between bacteria and archaea? I don't see one either here or in the article on archaea. I'd like something that is easy for a lay person to remember. The Wikipedia article on eukaryote says they all have a membrane-bound nucleus. That's easy for me to remember. It would also help to know what is positive or "pro" about prokaryotes. That, too, would make it easier for people to learn. I remember hearing that prokaryotes were originally distinguished from eukaryotes on the basis of a certain test in which prokaryotes accepted a stain and eukaryotes did not, although that may no longer be consistent with current usage. I don't find the word "stain" in either the eukaryote or the prokaryote article, so I don't know. However, I think it would help people remember some explanation is provided of what's "pro" about "prokaryotes". Perhaps a section on "History" could be added to the eukaryote and prokaryote articles explaining this.
3. Is there some reason bacteria, archaea, and eukaryota are spelled in some places with an initial capital, like Bacteria? If yes, is this explained in the current article and I missed it? If no, could this please be changed to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters?
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Error in structure of sentence in first paragraph, should read:
Bacteria also live in plants and animals (see symbiosis), and have flourished in manned space vehicles. 86.169.36.101 ( talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Domain does not equal kingdom. Domain is a level of classification above kingdom. The eubacteria represent a monophyletic domain and are comprised of several kingdoms. Please fix this immediately.
Theropod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.160.139.227 ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I thought the discovery of bacteria occurred in 1676 not 1683. 68.111.75.96 ( talk) 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Fungi is smelly stuff that grew on your Nan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.243.207 ( talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This sentence from the first paragraph maybe should be re-written. Parasitism is a type of symbiosis. I would suggest "Bacteria also live in mutualistic, commensualistic, and parasitic relationships with plants, animals, and other organisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.237.104 ( talk) 14:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This sentence from the first paragraph maybe should be re-written. Parasitism is a type of symbiosis. I would suggest "Bacteria also live in mutualistic, commensualistic, and parasitic relationships with plants, animals, and other organisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.237.104 ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bacteria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest a small grammar change in the section Classification and Identification. In the sentence "Once a pathogenic organism has been isolated, it can be further characterised by its morphology, growth patterns such as (aerobic or anaerobic growth, patterns of hemolysis) and staining." the open parentheses needs to be moved to replace the comma currently inside it, and another comma added after the end of the parentheses. This is the last sentence in the second to last paragraph in the section. 155.41.91.189 ( talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Braineeee ( talk) 20:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)I'm in a Biology course in post secondary school (ie. College) and I needed to find some information about Gram staining. I found a page with the exact same image (from a published book) only a different color. Its the image claimed to have been made by LadyOfHats and uploaded by NI74 in 2006 on this page. Changing 10% of an image (ie. its color) or other copyrighted work does not make it yours to release for free on the internet or in the public domain. That is a violation of copyright law as well. The correct Gram stain for this type of bacteria is Gram negative (using a red/pink Safranin or Fuchsine) dye. The image on this page is blue, and that is completely incorrect, it should be pink. I'm just a tad bit upset that I had to add this comment, and I had to waste my time double checking this for a homework assignment. Other Wikipedia pages about bacteria have conflicting information with this one. My sources are: http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=3&brch=73&sim=208&cnt=1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_staining.
This is a very useful source on bacteria. My thanks to to all who put it together .
I am confused about one thing. The text refers to bacteria having RNA in its chromosome whereas the diagram of a bacterium refers to DNA. is there an error in the diagram or am I missing something? Andrew Morris andrewmorris@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.237.86 ( talk) 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The table in the metabolism section list three energy sources: phototrophs, lithotroph, and organotroph. Technically, this is not correct, as lithotroph and organotroph refer to source of reducing equivalents. Lithotrophs can be photolithotrophs or chemolithotrophs. ~~Glucono — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.237.104 ( talk) 12:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bacteria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the "Further reading section" the following reference: Ogunseitan, O.A. (2005) Microbial Diversity: Form and Function in Prokaryotes. 312 pages. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4051-4448-3.
Plebeiansix ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Sorry about the not done earlier. I was mistaken. I will add it in now.
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Bacteria. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The oft-quoted factoid that bacterial cells in the human flora outnumber the human cells ten to one has been revisited and is at least worthy of more scrutiny, and hence, more careful phrasing.
Research
here by Milo et al. January 2016 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.110.88.179 (
talk)
15:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with a lead too long tag. My edit conforms to WP:LEADLENGTH and should not be reverted without providing a good reason. Also, at the time the article got promoted to FA‐status, the lead was shorter then it is now. — MartinZ02 ( talk) 13:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Antibiotics are used throughout the world, not just in the developing world. Could the introduction be changed to represent this? Indeed resistance to certain antimicrobials was actually found in the developing world first. Medications for malaria and Tb spring to mind.
78.32.155.242 ( talk) 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Lots said here about bacteria, but no definition is given. There must be one implicit in the categorization of life forms. Needs to be made explicit.
Norm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.193.141 ( talk) 02:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bacteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This was originally written for the Species page but was only added in a very abbreviated form. I would like to propose inserting it into this article, following the "Classification and identification" section.
Total number of bacterial species (estimated): 5–10 [2], or even 1,000 million [3] (identified and unidentified) bacteria worldwide.
Of the 6,000 to 170,000 identified prokaryotic species there are:
Here is my reasoning for the above values:
This paper: The All-Species Living Tree project. Yarza et al. 20008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18692976 [5] provides a lower-bound estimate of 6728, since the Type Species they are describing are a subset of named species, almost all of which have been grown in pure culture and are in collections (see article).
While the estimates of 5–10 million bacteria are still current, and probably better supported (as pointed out elsewhere, the species concept is even more difficult for these organisms) the paper listed below [3] cites a range from 10^7 to 10^9 (10 to 1,000 million) for the estimated number of species on the planet.
There is also published estimates of 35,498 total species richness, based on the 16,000 species that have been "seen by science". This latter value is based on the number of different 16S_ribosomal_RNA or RRNA genes (also see Molecular_phylogenetics) that are 98% or more divergent as described in this paper: Status of the Microbial Census. Schloss and Handelsman. 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15590780 [3]. However, the data they were basing their estimate on was much less than is in current databases, so I referenced release 10 to the RDP for a current number.
I've included values from the NCBI GenBank database's Taxonomy section since it is current, and the repository for all sequences. NCBI also has a taxonomic identifier for each sequence. [6]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: postscript (
link)Cheung L (Monday, 31 July 200).
"Thousands of microbes in one gulp". BBC. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bacteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The article states that the 10:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells is false, which may very well true, but I remember the given number of approximate number of bacteria we host to be sorely destitute while considering bacteriophages... or are they really just beneficial viruses and not considered bacteria at all with a misleading name? At any rate, please determine this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.13.40 ( talk) 07:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Aerobic bacteria Anaerobic bacteria commensal bacteria pathogenic bacteria
Major Meena kumari ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)MMK
The first sentence currently reads Bacteria is... They... I think the verb should agree with the subject, so "is" should be changed to "are" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.0.217 ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bacteria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to describe bacteria with more detailing (Trap t livre biology al apran, aret cap classe mpa ggn letemps vin donne toi notes et explique toi moi. Apran reviser) Zafrlaterne ( talk) 13:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! As you can see from the refimprove tag at the top and the comments above, this article has drifted a bit from the state it was in when it passed FA review 10 years ago. It's probably time for us to go through, cleanup extraneous content that has crept in over the years, add/update references, and add any new content that's appropriate. I'm opening this thread as a forum for discussion on that.
I made a few changes to the origins section that I also wanted to explain here:
If you have comments/concerns about those changes, feel free to revert and lets discuss it here. Also if you have other ideas for how to improve the article, I'm all ears and happy to help. Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 23:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
For an FA, this article contains a surprising amount of uncited material, for example in the Cellular structure section to name just one. I hesitate to slap a {{refimprove}} tag at the top as that would be tantamount to asking for a FA review, but the article has plainly diverged markedly from its assessed state, and requires more careful citation, to say the least. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the article states that bacteria forms "a biomass which exceeds that of all plants and animals," but more recent research here ( https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506) shows that plants make up most of the biomass in the world. I recommend that this be changed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.120.76 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
For a Featured Article this contribution has too may unsourced statements. I intend to overhaul the article in the forthcoming weeks to address this issue and update the text where necessary. Graham Beards ( talk) 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Bacteria has 5 flagellation arrangements Monotrichous Lophotrichous Amphitrichous Retrichous Atrichous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizone Andrew ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Graham Beards - Gram or gram — The style used on the page - long-standing, has been for the use of lower case. There have been seemingly unresolved arguments re this but as far as I am aware due to the ambivalent usage in various sources the style choice was left to the editors - some pages use one type others use the other. Gram stain uses lower case as does gram-negative as an editor wishing to change the style usage it ought to have been taken to talk page - that's why MOS:VAR was cited. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
In the article it says that only bacteria and some archea can synthesize Vitamin B12. This is simply not true. Humans can indeed synthesize Vitamin B12, people have been making and selling vitamin supplements for years. -- ApChrKey Talk 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not an improvement. [11] The prose is not FA standard and there is an inaccuracy. The Kingdom is Eubacteria not Bacteria. And, "Typically a few micrometres in length, bacteria..." is much better prose than " Being prokaryotic microorganisms, they are typically...". And there is an annoying repetition of "kingdom" (four times in one sentence. We usually discuss edits to Featured Articles on the Talk Page first. -- Graham Beards ( talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
What, the evolutionary cabal that run Wikipedia lock another page, surely not? Scared of the truth guys?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.34 ( talk)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
As I have stated above (section 1), I have been working slowly - but surely - on revising this article. Today I have added my input to a rewrite of the introduction. I have more text under construction for the paragraphs following based on the draft structure that I outlined above (comments welcome). I see that the Microorganism page is undergoing some collaborative rewrite effort so it will be interesting to see what they come up with given the overlap that already exists with that article and the Bacteria article.
There is a fair bit of discussion here on the Talk: Bacteria page and I have tried to incorporate the comments that I have read here. The intro is aimed at being more general and able to function as a stand alone description/definition of Bacteria. The intro also outlines the most important of the areas that I think should be the focus in the article.
After all of the discussion about nomenclature of Bacteria I have added the short paragraph on this subject. No doubt the article should contain a more comprehensive section covering these issues in the body text.
I am looking forward to your comments. Please state major objections here on the talk page before ripping up my draft. :-) -- Azaroonus 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi All, I continue with a new installment of my contribution to the article. Comments welcome.-- Azaroonus 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Eubacteria redirects here, however there is a big difference between eubacteria and bacteria as a whole. I think Eubacteria should be a seperate article.
Researchers watched mutations take place in near real time, with surprising results.
"This straightforward approach to the study of experimental evolution can be used as a tool for discovery and analysis, and could even be used to discover bacterial capabilities that would benefit humankind in a variety of ways," said Herring. [1]
As per the Good Article review on this article, it has been delisted by a 2 to 0 vote. Primarily references are the problem, the unreferenced template up top is the first indication, and User:Lincher warned editors here way back in June to add some references, yet that never seems to of happened much. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8 Homestarmy 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've shortened this section. TimVickers 15:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The history of bacteriology section is not really specific to bacteria, rather than microbiology. There might be good reason for a separate "bacterial diseases" article--I am thinking of the textbooks with this all put in a second part.
Perhaps the metabolism section should be fuller, with a table. Most readers of this won't know any biochemistry. Since these distinctions are so critical to the overall understanding, it might be best to give each of them a subsection, and not rely on the taxobox. I think there are to many refs. At this general level it should rarely be necessary to refer to a primary article rather than a review, except for the very latest developments. I'm partic. bothered by 23, 26, 27*,33, 36, 46, 48, 57, 63, 69, 73, 80, 86, 88, 89*, 93* * indicates ones that i feel most strongly about. I'd personally be reluctant to give refs to journal articles in rarely held journals, like A.vL, for such a general article.
And--but this is a personal crusade--I would indicate specifically the parts taken from the 2 mentioned sources. DGG 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the link to wikitravel in the sister-project box at the end of the article. It's quite silly to have it there. I thought it was a joke actually... Witt y lama 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As of 2/Dec2006 this article is 82kb in size. I think we simply can't fit anything more in here without removing material at the same time. TimVickers 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does the source text of the taxobox include the kingdom Monera? It is not shown in the article and is an obsolete taxon. -- Eleassar my talk 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is currently a candidate for today's featured article. Show support here [2] Buc 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow mindblowing. -- Filll 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
TB is not the most common bacterial disease. I doubt it is even the most common deadly disease, since the biggest killer is probably food poisoning among under fives. Sad mouse 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job getting the WHO data. Adding fatal certainly makes it better, but I'm still not entirely convinced that TB is the leading bacterial cause of fatality. TB is easily the leading bacterial killer in adults, but relatively few children die from TB, with more from diarrhoeal (which is split between multiple species and also viruses, I agree) and respiratory diseases (mostly staph). Looking at the spreadsheet, respiratory infections aside from TB kill twice as many people as TB (with an inverse distribution curve, with the young and old being killed). Off the top of my head, staph probably constitutes around half of respiratory infectious deaths, more in the elderly and the young in third world countries. From the data in the spreadsheet we can't tell, because they don't break it down into pathogen, but I would be hesitant to make the claim that TB is the biggest killer without such data (a claim that is not made in the TB article). Sad mouse 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Since TB can also be classified as a respiratory infection, I re-worded to state that respiratory infections are most common, with TB as a leading example. Hope this solves the problem. TimVickers 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? Wouldn't that mean that 9/10 of what constitutes a human is bacteria? And if you wanted to analyze a human cell, you'd have 9 chances out of 10 to pick up a bacterium instead? Devil Master 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You may not have access to the reference on line, here is the relevant quote:
Hope this makes things more clear to you. TimVickers 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Bacteria is today's (January 20th) Featured Article! I am so proud of everyone who helped to make this article great! A special thank-you to Tim, for his amazing leadership and commitment! Kudos! Adenosine talk 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised to find no reference here (or anywhere on wikipedia, unless my search skills fail me) to VNC, the concept of viable but nonculturable bacteria.... [3] -- Graham talk/ mail/ e 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm an engineering trying to find some facts about bacteria. Does anyone know where can I find information about physical properties of bacteria like size, volume, density, radius, etc? I've been trying to look for information in different journals really hard but haven't been lucky yet ...
Thanks for the help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josegc ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
i really like thsi site it works really swell ofor skool projects!!!
If you go to this site, http://www.biology-direct.com/content/1/1/19, you will find a paper Mr C-S published in July of last year. I didn't understand most of it, but what I did understand really changed my views on a 3-domain system and the monophyletic-ness of Bacteria. Take a look. Werothegreat 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't say how many species of bacteria are known, or believed, to exist. Andy Mabbett 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Added to "Classification and identification" section. TimVickers 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that some Bacteria, such as the Streptomycetes, were considered multicellular. If this view is controversial, shouldn't the article at least take note of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.187.202 ( talk) 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Aren't germs synonymous to bacteria? Why doesn't searching for germs redirect me to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.12.38.25 ( talk) 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
congratulations!!!!(2 u all who made this wikipedia page) this page is very good it helped me a lot
Seriously. This is the best article everrr. I am so impressed, i cant express. I wish there was something more than featured. LOVELY!!! Luxurious.gaurav 11:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
With all of the products humans use against bacteria, is it possible that certain bacteria species could be building up an immunity to anti-bacteria products (such as Lysol wipes and sprays)? If this does happen is it something people (scientists specializing in anti-bacteria) could find out right away or will we just continue to spray and wipe for no reason?-- 71.158.216.141 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer, I don't want to just go ahead and change things without discussion, but I would argue strongly that the qualification that bacteria lack membrane-bound organelles is no longer justifiable. Two examples, one clear and the second ambiguous, come to mind immediately, though there are others.
-The clear example: some planctomycetes contain anammoxosomes, which are membrane-bound compartments housing a special set of metabolic reactions (not to mention the DNA/ribosome-containing compartment within which anammoxosomes lie). In fact, as this is alluded to within the article, the statement that bacteria lack such structures causes an internal contradiction.
-The more ambiguous example: the magnetosomes of certain proteobacteria could be regarded as such, as they are a membrane-enclosed space with special contents (magnetic crystals) and special membrane protein content. The only ambiguity is that each magnetosome has a junction that connects its contents with the periplasm, which in my view doesn't disqualify it from being an organelle (in the sense that a gap junction doesn't cause two animal cells to be defined as one, nor do plasmodesmata cause a plant to be regarded as a single cell).
In any event, I would like to remove that qualification and perhaps add something to the article about bacterial organelles, within the Intracellular Structures section. I await comment.... MicroProf 04:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates declares that scrollbars are not appropriate for the ref section. See its talk page (search for "Scrolling Reference Lists") for discussion.-- SallyForth123 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Ibn Khatima and Ibn al-Khatib wrote of infectious diseases being caused contagious entities that enter the human body" should read ".. caused by .." .. I'm new here and this article has a lock on it so I didn't want to attempt the edit myself. Cheers, Kevin 70.52.216.160 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What are the most common bacteria? If you know, please help! I need this for a science fair project, and for a paper DUE NOV. 5!!!!! Please, please, PLEASE help!!!!!
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding this to my project now. Thanks!
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The project was going to be too much work, I had to switch. :(
☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please help on the prostatitis page? Could someone please summarize the medical literature from MEDLINE and elsewhere on "chronic prostatitis and bacteria" - thank you. Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia works by building consensus..... The primary method of determining consensus is discussion...." ReasonableLogicalMan 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here because I heard someone claim antioxidants kill bacteria. I can't find (or decipher?) the answer, so I'm guessing they don't kill bacteria. Would someone add this is it's actually true? -- geekyßroad . meow? 00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would very much like to see discussion of the hypothesis that the total bacterial biomass on Earth may exceed that of all the rest of life combined.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1996
"Not only does the Earth contain more bacterial organisms than all others combined (scarcely surprising, given their minimal size and mass); not only do bacteria live in more places and work in a greater variety of metabolic ways; not only did bacteria alone constitute the first half of life's history, with no slackening in diversity thereafter; but also, and most surprisingly,
total bacterial biomass (even at such minimal weight per cell) may exceed all the rest of life combined...." [4] (I have added emphasis)
Stephen Jay Gould, "Planet of the Bacteria," Washington Post Horizon, 1996, 119 (344): H1.
This essay was adapted from Full House, New York: Harmony Books, 1996, pp. 175-192.
Also "Bacterial Biovolume and Biomass Estimations" by Gunnar Bratbak Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985 June; 49(6): 1488–1493. [5]
"Both bacterial biomass and bacterial production in aquatic ecosystems may thus have been seriously underestimated."
Thanks. --
Writtenonsand (
talk)
13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and this says prokaryotes in total are about 50%, so I added "much of" rather than choosing a precise figure.
Tim Vickers (
talk)
16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)I have to decided to remove this early hypothesizing that such things as microrganisms existed. First of all neither of these early claims resemble in any way that microorganisms existed. Worlds like foul earthly bodies and contagious entities does not in any way mean someone was talking about microbes. I mean were these foul contagious entities made of what? solids, liquids, a combination. Basically by saying these early people were speculating on the existence of microbes is fallacious since one is just amplying a modern interpretation to ancient words. Essentialy one is just assuming, ohh contagious entities, well they must be talking about microbes, but thats just retrospect since we now know such things exist. This early section is best kept in the germ theory page. Lastl, but not least, associating microbes with disease is foolish since its not true, not all microbes cause disease. Lastly this article is about a specific microbe, bacteria so it makes even less sense to put these early speculative ideas, since its not clear if even these ideas were about microoganisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
lets put it this way, bacteria has a specific charactersitics, so it makes no sense to be writting about wild early speculation on microorganisms, if thats even what was being discussed. a prefect example to illustrate what am saying is this. Would it make sense to, on the history of the electron article, to write about early indian and greek philosophy about atoms. No it wouldnt becuase the electron is something specific, just as bacteria, and this article is specifically about bacteria sooo. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tomasz Prochownik (
talk •
contribs)
08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
i think this new revised section on the history is okay with everyone, give me a shout on any comments or suggestions.
What a fantastic article. Many thanks to all those who contributed, excellent work. FQ1513 ( talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this might be the best wikipedia article i've ever read...
The only little thingie I encountered is that the text says "Bacteria were first observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek", whilst the picture says Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.139.66 ( talk) 14:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
how do bacteria make sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.181.65 ( talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The following links need disambig:
butyrate
chlamydia
fimbria
respiratory infection
rhizosphere
stationary phase
Randomblue (
talk)
21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is one of my favorite articles! :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The first image has x15k magnification, as indicated on the image itself. But the image note says 25000x. Why the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.226.87 ( talk) 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, So I seem to notice a few problems in the article but since I'M just registered as of today I can't edit to the article so I'D like to point out that the word yogurt is spelled wrong. If this is a different spelling and I don't know of it please inform me. The word in the article is spelled yoghurt, is this correct? Toiletvodka ( talk) 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI, the article on the Archaea is up for FA. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get why bacterium redirects to bacteria and not the other way around. According to the naming conventions, article subjects are always in singular, except for a few obvious exceptions, such as The Beatles, etc. I would prefer to switch the redirect. What do you people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.81.182 ( talk) 07:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Bacterium currently redirects to Bacteria and is incorrectly tagged as {{ R from plural}} - should be {{ R to plural}}. GregorB ( talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What's more harmful, bacteria? or worms? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JricHwang (
talk •
contribs)
20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Since this article refers to the kingdom Bacteria, the word "bacteria" should be capitalised and italicised throughout, as per convention in microbiology journals. The same goes for Archaea and Eukarya. Milady ( talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
i have to look up makes is expamles but this website doesnt help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.57.63 ( talk) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Origin and early evolution
Further information: Timeline of evolution
The ancestors of modern bacteria were single-celled microorganisms that were the first forms of life to develop on earth, about 4 billion years ago. For about 3 billion years, all organisms were microscopic, and bacteria and archaea were the dominant forms of life.[22][23] Although bacterial fossils exist, such as stromatolites, their lack of distinctive morphology prevents them from being used to examine the past history of bacterial evolution, or to date the time of origin of a particular bacterial species. However, gene sequences can be used to reconstruct the bacterial phylogeny, and these studies indicate that bacteria diverged first from the archaeal/eukaryotic lineage.[24] The most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea was probably a hyperthermophile that lived about 2.5 billion–3.2 billion years ago.[25][26]
Bacteria were also involved in the second great evolutionary divergence, that of the archaea and eukaryotes. Here, eukaryotes resulted from ancient bacteria entering into endosymbiotic associations with the ancestors of eukaryotic cells, which were themselves possibly related to the Archaea.[27][28] This involved the engulfment by proto-eukaryotic cells of alpha-proteobacterial symbionts to form either mitochondria or hydrogenosomes, which are still being found in all known Eukarya (sometimes in highly reduced form, e.g. in ancient "amitochondrial" protozoa). Later on, an independent second engulfment by some mitochondria-containing eukaryotes of cyanobacterial-like organisms led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants. There are even some algal groups known that clearly originated from subsequent events of endosymbiosis by heterotrophic eukaryotic hosts engulfing a eukaryotic algae that developed into "second-generation" plastids.[29][30]
Uh...again! How is that neutral?!
66.74.230.117 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Some people don't believe bacteria even exist. Should we scrap the whole article for the sake of "neutrality"? Some people don't believe people actually exist. Should we put a disclaimer on your forehead that you may not exist? Evolution is overwhelmingly favored within the scientific community and this is a scientific article - it's not split between pro- and anti-evolutionists as you see it. Additionally, bacteria themselves are an excellent example of evolution as evidenced through bacterial resistance, among other things. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
155.37.215.145 (
talk)
13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
So, if evolution is true and bacteria are "an excellent example of evolution." Explain how did the Flagellum evolve? :D Project Gnome ( talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Give an unskilled man all the components to make a analog watch, and see how long it takes him to make it perfectly..that is if he lives long enough to do so...
Note: I'm not trying to cause any trouble...I just want them to think for themselves... Project Gnome ( talk) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The text says "There are approximately ten times as many bacterial cells as human cells in the human body, with large numbers of bacteria on the skin and in the digestive tract.[6] Although the vast majority of these bacteria are rendered harmless by the protective effects of the immune system, and a few are beneficial, some are pathogenic bacteria and cause infectious diseases, including cholera, syphilis, anthrax, leprosy and bubonic plague." To me, this seems to imply that the bacteria that cause cholera, syphilis, anthrax, leprosy and bubonic plague are to be routinely found living on or in the human body. Surely that is incorrect? Or surely it needs some more clarification? Invertzoo ( talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Amazing article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srivastav.ankur ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not happy with E. coli's being included as a pathogen in the new diagram. Second only to anaerobes, it is the commonest commensal in the gut. It should list the pathogenic serovar. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. Where are the, all too common, throat infections, Group A streptococci for example, and in our poor ears, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is even a more common infection. And, as I said on the virus talk page, I find the absence of genitalia too prudish for a modern encylopedia. Graham Colm Talk 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
PPS. Staphylococcus aureus is not a common cause of infections of the eye. This bacterium most often causes skin boils and abscesses, but eye infections are most often caused by Haemophilus influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis. This diagram does not belong in a featured article. Sorry. Graham Colm Talk 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the "Domain" the same as "Kingdom"? There are actually two kingdoms of bacteria - Eubacteria and Archaebacteria. I just wasn't sure. Thanks. Geeky Math ( talk) 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse my English because I am not native English speaker. I just had to create login name to point out this mistake: "Bacteria" is a singular form i.e. one would say "I see one bacteria". Plural form of word "Bacteria" is "Bacteriae", therefore domain name is Bacteriae i.e. one would say "I see five bacteriae". AE reads like "e" in word "elephant" with this exception that "e" in word "bacteriae" is long "e". There is no such word as a "bacterium" that reffers to the organisms taxonomized in domain of Bacteriae. Please do not create articles which convert rigor scientia into scientific pornography. You are insulting students like me (who want to learn) and undermining your own reputation (even in eyes of students who ended their biology education in junior- or high-school). You are passing false information to people. They read these articles and learn information which is wrong and accept it as a true. I lookup things in wikipedia to learn, not to be mislead with false and not elegant, unverified information. If you, athors of articles can not write articles proplerly, I kindly ask you to not do it for the benefit of society and science. If you do not agree with me, please look up Bacteria/Bacteriae in some really decent latin dictionary. :Sincerely, ::Michael Sokolowski
Sorry about the brevity and perhaps my ignorance. I only had a quick look at this article—and I didn't notice it anywhere pointing out that a single bacterium (I mean an individual organism, of any bacterial species) is a single-celled organism. I sure hope I'm right in thinking that each individual organism is only one cell. If indeed an individual bacterial organism has only one cell, and if indeed the article doesn't already say that (preferably in the first paragraph), then it should be added. President Lethe away! President Lethe ( talk) 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Added a short blurb on Vampirococcus, came here to link it in, but I'm apparently too new. Jeweaver ( talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)jeweaver
Just to make sure: There are no quick tests, like dipsticks or some such, that directly test for bacteria and identify a certain type "while-u-wait", are there? The urine dipsticks test for metabolites, and if you want to know which bug it is, you still need a lab, even if PCR might speed things up a bit compared to cultures?-- Diogenes75 ( talk) 09:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The name "Heliobacter pylori" in the "Pathogens" subsection should be in italics, no? 212.84.110.62 ( talk) 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.-- Oneiros ( talk) 14:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
According to this section in Prokaryotes, and for example this source, some bacterial populations are beginning to be considered as multicellular organisms. In some colonies they seem to perform a variety of classical multicellular functions, including defense against antagonists, selective gene expression (differentiation), inter-cellular communication via multiple molecular signals, resource exploitation (which cannot be done by individual cells), a primitive "circulatory system", etc. This behavior is shown by a variety of bacteria species, both Gram negative and positive. This topic seems to be focused on Bacteria, yet the Prokaryote article, which covers both Archaea and Bacteria, appears to have more content related to this than the Bacteria article, where all I can find is the brief Communication section, and some Quorum sensing-related aspects in the last paragraph of morphology. It would seem to me that these are not morphological issues, go beyond mere "communication", and deserve a dedicated section focused on the general topic of bacteria multicelluarity, similar to the "Sociality" section in Prokaryotes. Comments? Crum375 ( talk) 02:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so bacterial colonies can defend from antagonists and such. The fact remains that a single cell extracted from such a colony remains viable to survive. The cells are not truly specialized as are those of multicellular organisms. Speaking as a Biology Major, the proper term for this is social (or colonial), but not multicellular. While the functions you refer to are classically multicellular, the more current definition of multicellularity is one where a single extracted cell could not survive in the wild. (Colonized human liver and blood cells survive with enough artificial help not to be considered natural.) The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 21:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The phenamanon we've all been referring to in this section is called "quorum sensing," and it's considered a separate category from true multicellularity.
All these sources were cited on Page 450 of Concepts of Genetics (9th Edition), by Klug, Cummings, Spencer, and Palladino. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need this picture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Growing_colony_of_E._coli.jpg) under "Growth and reproduction?" There are a couple of reasons why this picture bothers me. It's not a realistic image to the point that, given only the image, no one would be able to identify it. Next, it's color-coded but the colors only serve to confuse since there is no key or explanation. Finally, it doesn't further my understanding of bacterial growth or reproduction. It doesn't show bacteria growing or reproducing, like a couple of .gif's I have seen nor does it show a stage in growth or reproduction. There are better pictures to show growth than a drawing of a static colony. Occamsrazorwit ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The introduction suggests that bacteria only live on planet Earth. Is this true? Are there no bacteria on the Moon or on Mars, e.g.? 196.215.32.190 ( talk) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)1 Geografiskt läge
The "Origin and early evolution section" says:
"The most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea was probably a hyperthermophile that lived about 2.5 billion–3.2 billion years ago."
It supports this statement by quoting two references:
1. Di Giulio M (2003). "The universal ancestor and the ancestor of bacteria were hyperthermophiles". J Mol Evol 57 (6): 721–30. doi:10.1007/s00239-003-2522-6. PMID 14745541.
2. Battistuzzi FU, Feijao A, Hedges SB (November 2004). "A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land". BMC Evolutionary Biology 4: 44. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-4-44. PMID 15535883.
However, the references do not support this statement. For example, the second article (the one by Battistuzzi and Hedges) says:
Divergence time estimates for the major groups of eubacteria are between 2.5–3.2 billion years ago (Ga) while those for archaebacteria are mostly between 3.1–4.1 Ga. The time estimates suggest a Hadean origin of life (prior to 4.1 Ga), an early origin of methanogenesis (3.8–4.1 Ga), an origin of anaerobic methanotrophy after 3.1 Ga, an origin of phototrophy prior to 3.2 Ga, an early colonization of land 2.8–3.1 Ga, and an origin of aerobic methanotrophy 2.5–2.8 Ga.
What they are saying is that the divergence date for the 3 major groups of eubacteria (Actinobacteria, Deinococcus, and Cyanobacteria) are between 2.5 and 3.2 billion years ago. This is not the same as saying "The most recent common ancestor of bacteria and archaea was probably a hyperthermophile that lived about 2.5 billion–3.2 billion years ago".
It stands to reason that if the 3 major groups of eubacteria diverged from each other at 2.5-3.2 billion years ago, then eubacteria must have diverged from archea even earlier.
As they say later in the article, this is a guess, since a date for the common ancestor of eubacteria and archaebacteria has not been calculated. There are only various minimum estimates. Their estimates are <4 billion years, as stated here:
"Neither the time for the origin of life, nor the divergence of archaebacteria and eubacteria, was estimated directly in this study. Nonetheless, one divergence within archaebacteria was estimated to be as old as 4.11 Ga (Node P), suggesting even earlier dates for the last common ancestor of living organisms and the origin of life."
In fact, this is reiterated in a more recent publication by the same group. The publication is "The Timetree of Life" by S. Blair Hedges and Sudhir Kumar (Oxford Press). Quoting from this:
"An initial split (~4200 Ma) led to the Superkingdoms Eubacteria and Archaebacteria."
I haven't ever directly edited any Wikipedia page, and am unsure whether this is a good idea for a Wikipedia newbie like me. Therefore, I am putting my comments on the talk page. I hope someone will confirm the details I have provided and correct the article.
Xen1977 ( talk) 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Xenofon
{{
editprotected}}
The following redirects need redirect categories/category parameters added:
#REDIRECT [[Bacteria]]{{R to plural|printworthy}}{{R from move}}
That will subdue the Unprintworthy cat and add the redirect to Category:Printworthy redirects.
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Bacteria]]{{R to talk}}
Thank you in advance for making these code modifications. — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In the modern Darwinian model of evolution, what survival/evolutionary benefit does it confer to the bacteria to produce toxin(s) that kill the host (take your pick: cholera, bubonic plague, etc, etc, etc)? There must be some; the article says that these are very ancient bacteria. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, two good answers. That Optimal virulence article answers my question exactly and I would not have thought to even look for such a title on my own. Dumbass me. Thank you all. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section, "Cellular structure", the term "plasma membrane" is introduced with no explanation: "However, in many photosynthetic bacteria the plasma membrane is highly folded". Is it the same as the "cell membrane" or different? AndreasLotheOpdahl ( talk) 07:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they're the same. I fixed it in the article.
Jojojlj (
talk)
09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Some observations.
Cyanophytes are Bacteria. Under the
three-domain system, all Bacteria are
prokaryotes, but not all prokaryotes are Bacteria (some are
Archaea). We do not add together the number of cyanophytes and the number of prokaryotes to get the number of Bacteria. The source at
http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/number.html gives a figure of 9,278 species of prokaryotes. This would include all Bacteria (including all cyanobateria) and all Archaea. This source from 2006, Staley, James T. (2006 November 29).
"The bacterial species dilemma and the genomic-phylogenetic species concept". Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences. 361 (1475): 1899–1909.
doi:
10.1098/rstb.2006.1914. Retrieved 13 December 2011. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), states that there were then about 5,000 named species of Bacteria and Archaea. A 1990s source I saw stated there were then about 4,000 described species of bacteria (presumably including Archaea). I will change the article back to reflect this. --
Donald Albury
22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just working on a PowerPoint for my high school biology class and noticed an extra open parenthesis '(' in the growth and development section. Since the article was locked, I did not think I could do anything. Thanks and keep up the good work wikipedia!
Axc201 ( talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request for a spelling correction - under the Pathogens section, a sentence in the 3rd paragraph currently reads:
Infections can be prevented by antiseptic measures such as sterilizating the skin prior to piercing it with the needle of a syringe, and by proper care of indwelling catheters.
Please correct "sterilizating" to "sterilizing".
92.30.3.247 ( talk) 12:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
When it said there are about 5×1030 bacteria, I deleted the “five nonillion” and left just the exponent; to avoid long/short scale conflicts; and also because I find it illogical that bi- means two, but billion means (103)3; tri- means three, but trillion means (103)4; quad- means four, but quadrillion means (103)5; etc., an endless chain shift. Okay?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 11:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
In the section on morphology, the article strays into biofilms which is really a behavioral phenomenon rather than a morphological one. And it seems to suggest that quorum sensing and aggregation are more complex behaviors than creating biofilms, when in fact that's how the biofilms form. Also, in biofilms as well as in fruiting bodies, the bacteria similarly cooperate and perform different tasks. The section in the behavior section regarding biofilms looks pretty accurate (I've co-authored a scientific paper on the subject). I suggest we scrap the paragraph about biofilms within morphology, and maybe move some of the content about myxospores into the behavior section (but delete it from the morphology section).
Side note: I also noticed that the periplasmic space (between cell wall and cell membrane) is mentioned before any discussion of cell walls, which is bound to confuse people. And even within the discussion of cell walls, the periplasmic space is never defined.
Another side note: I take issue with the first sentence in the article. "Bacteria constitute a large domain (or kingdom) of prokaryotic microorganisms." They have a domain to themselves; kingdoms are subclassifications within domains. And the layperson who's trying to figure out what is this tiny thing they've heard about and they think it's maybe called bacteria? They'll run away when they read the first sentence of the article!! I don't think we need to introduce the word 'microorganism' yet, and certainly not 'prokaryotic'. Hmm. "Bacteria represent a large domain of single-celled organisms." Even there, organisms might be too much, but better than microorganisms. What do you think?
Jojojlj ( talk) 10:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph suggests that bacteria can live in space and cites a Nasa article. Unfortunately, if you read the Nasa article, you will see that they say bacteria can live in spaceships, not space. Just thought I would point this out.
Dishione ( talk) 03:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
1. The Wikipedia article on archaea says they are "prokaryotes, meaning that they have no cell nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelles within their cells." The present article on bacteria says that bacteria are prokaryotes that "rarely harbour membrane-bound organelles." This is confusing. Are there bacteria that harbour membrane-bound organelles? If yes, the archaea article is wrong, and the phrase quoted here should be corrected. If no, the text in this article containing "rarely harbour membrane-bound organelles" should be modified to be clearer. The Wikipedia article on prokaryote says that "prokaryotes are a group of organisms whose cells lack a membrane-bound nucleus". This sounds like the archaea text is misleading. I'm confused.
2. Is there a succinct summary of the difference between bacteria and archaea? I don't see one either here or in the article on archaea. I'd like something that is easy for a lay person to remember. The Wikipedia article on eukaryote says they all have a membrane-bound nucleus. That's easy for me to remember. It would also help to know what is positive or "pro" about prokaryotes. That, too, would make it easier for people to learn. I remember hearing that prokaryotes were originally distinguished from eukaryotes on the basis of a certain test in which prokaryotes accepted a stain and eukaryotes did not, although that may no longer be consistent with current usage. I don't find the word "stain" in either the eukaryote or the prokaryote article, so I don't know. However, I think it would help people remember some explanation is provided of what's "pro" about "prokaryotes". Perhaps a section on "History" could be added to the eukaryote and prokaryote articles explaining this.
3. Is there some reason bacteria, archaea, and eukaryota are spelled in some places with an initial capital, like Bacteria? If yes, is this explained in the current article and I missed it? If no, could this please be changed to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters?
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Error in structure of sentence in first paragraph, should read:
Bacteria also live in plants and animals (see symbiosis), and have flourished in manned space vehicles. 86.169.36.101 ( talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Domain does not equal kingdom. Domain is a level of classification above kingdom. The eubacteria represent a monophyletic domain and are comprised of several kingdoms. Please fix this immediately.
Theropod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.160.139.227 ( talk) 19:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I thought the discovery of bacteria occurred in 1676 not 1683. 68.111.75.96 ( talk) 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Fungi is smelly stuff that grew on your Nan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.243.207 ( talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This sentence from the first paragraph maybe should be re-written. Parasitism is a type of symbiosis. I would suggest "Bacteria also live in mutualistic, commensualistic, and parasitic relationships with plants, animals, and other organisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.237.104 ( talk) 14:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This sentence from the first paragraph maybe should be re-written. Parasitism is a type of symbiosis. I would suggest "Bacteria also live in mutualistic, commensualistic, and parasitic relationships with plants, animals, and other organisms." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.237.104 ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bacteria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest a small grammar change in the section Classification and Identification. In the sentence "Once a pathogenic organism has been isolated, it can be further characterised by its morphology, growth patterns such as (aerobic or anaerobic growth, patterns of hemolysis) and staining." the open parentheses needs to be moved to replace the comma currently inside it, and another comma added after the end of the parentheses. This is the last sentence in the second to last paragraph in the section. 155.41.91.189 ( talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Braineeee ( talk) 20:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)I'm in a Biology course in post secondary school (ie. College) and I needed to find some information about Gram staining. I found a page with the exact same image (from a published book) only a different color. Its the image claimed to have been made by LadyOfHats and uploaded by NI74 in 2006 on this page. Changing 10% of an image (ie. its color) or other copyrighted work does not make it yours to release for free on the internet or in the public domain. That is a violation of copyright law as well. The correct Gram stain for this type of bacteria is Gram negative (using a red/pink Safranin or Fuchsine) dye. The image on this page is blue, and that is completely incorrect, it should be pink. I'm just a tad bit upset that I had to add this comment, and I had to waste my time double checking this for a homework assignment. Other Wikipedia pages about bacteria have conflicting information with this one. My sources are: http://amrita.vlab.co.in/?sub=3&brch=73&sim=208&cnt=1 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_staining.
This is a very useful source on bacteria. My thanks to to all who put it together .
I am confused about one thing. The text refers to bacteria having RNA in its chromosome whereas the diagram of a bacterium refers to DNA. is there an error in the diagram or am I missing something? Andrew Morris andrewmorris@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.237.86 ( talk) 15:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The table in the metabolism section list three energy sources: phototrophs, lithotroph, and organotroph. Technically, this is not correct, as lithotroph and organotroph refer to source of reducing equivalents. Lithotrophs can be photolithotrophs or chemolithotrophs. ~~Glucono — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.237.104 ( talk) 12:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bacteria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to the "Further reading section" the following reference: Ogunseitan, O.A. (2005) Microbial Diversity: Form and Function in Prokaryotes. 312 pages. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4051-4448-3.
Plebeiansix ( talk) 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Done Sorry about the not done earlier. I was mistaken. I will add it in now.
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Bacteria. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The oft-quoted factoid that bacterial cells in the human flora outnumber the human cells ten to one has been revisited and is at least worthy of more scrutiny, and hence, more careful phrasing.
Research
here by Milo et al. January 2016 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.110.88.179 (
talk)
15:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with a lead too long tag. My edit conforms to WP:LEADLENGTH and should not be reverted without providing a good reason. Also, at the time the article got promoted to FA‐status, the lead was shorter then it is now. — MartinZ02 ( talk) 13:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Antibiotics are used throughout the world, not just in the developing world. Could the introduction be changed to represent this? Indeed resistance to certain antimicrobials was actually found in the developing world first. Medications for malaria and Tb spring to mind.
78.32.155.242 ( talk) 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Lots said here about bacteria, but no definition is given. There must be one implicit in the categorization of life forms. Needs to be made explicit.
Norm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.193.141 ( talk) 02:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bacteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This was originally written for the Species page but was only added in a very abbreviated form. I would like to propose inserting it into this article, following the "Classification and identification" section.
Total number of bacterial species (estimated): 5–10 [2], or even 1,000 million [3] (identified and unidentified) bacteria worldwide.
Of the 6,000 to 170,000 identified prokaryotic species there are:
Here is my reasoning for the above values:
This paper: The All-Species Living Tree project. Yarza et al. 20008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18692976 [5] provides a lower-bound estimate of 6728, since the Type Species they are describing are a subset of named species, almost all of which have been grown in pure culture and are in collections (see article).
While the estimates of 5–10 million bacteria are still current, and probably better supported (as pointed out elsewhere, the species concept is even more difficult for these organisms) the paper listed below [3] cites a range from 10^7 to 10^9 (10 to 1,000 million) for the estimated number of species on the planet.
There is also published estimates of 35,498 total species richness, based on the 16,000 species that have been "seen by science". This latter value is based on the number of different 16S_ribosomal_RNA or RRNA genes (also see Molecular_phylogenetics) that are 98% or more divergent as described in this paper: Status of the Microbial Census. Schloss and Handelsman. 2004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15590780 [3]. However, the data they were basing their estimate on was much less than is in current databases, so I referenced release 10 to the RDP for a current number.
I've included values from the NCBI GenBank database's Taxonomy section since it is current, and the repository for all sequences. NCBI also has a taxonomic identifier for each sequence. [6]
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: postscript (
link)Cheung L (Monday, 31 July 200).
"Thousands of microbes in one gulp". BBC. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bacteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The article states that the 10:1 ratio of bacteria to human cells is false, which may very well true, but I remember the given number of approximate number of bacteria we host to be sorely destitute while considering bacteriophages... or are they really just beneficial viruses and not considered bacteria at all with a misleading name? At any rate, please determine this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.13.40 ( talk) 07:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Aerobic bacteria Anaerobic bacteria commensal bacteria pathogenic bacteria
Major Meena kumari ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)MMK
The first sentence currently reads Bacteria is... They... I think the verb should agree with the subject, so "is" should be changed to "are" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.0.217 ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bacteria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to describe bacteria with more detailing (Trap t livre biology al apran, aret cap classe mpa ggn letemps vin donne toi notes et explique toi moi. Apran reviser) Zafrlaterne ( talk) 13:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! As you can see from the refimprove tag at the top and the comments above, this article has drifted a bit from the state it was in when it passed FA review 10 years ago. It's probably time for us to go through, cleanup extraneous content that has crept in over the years, add/update references, and add any new content that's appropriate. I'm opening this thread as a forum for discussion on that.
I made a few changes to the origins section that I also wanted to explain here:
If you have comments/concerns about those changes, feel free to revert and lets discuss it here. Also if you have other ideas for how to improve the article, I'm all ears and happy to help. Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 23:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
For an FA, this article contains a surprising amount of uncited material, for example in the Cellular structure section to name just one. I hesitate to slap a {{refimprove}} tag at the top as that would be tantamount to asking for a FA review, but the article has plainly diverged markedly from its assessed state, and requires more careful citation, to say the least. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the article states that bacteria forms "a biomass which exceeds that of all plants and animals," but more recent research here ( https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506) shows that plants make up most of the biomass in the world. I recommend that this be changed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.120.76 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
For a Featured Article this contribution has too may unsourced statements. I intend to overhaul the article in the forthcoming weeks to address this issue and update the text where necessary. Graham Beards ( talk) 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Bacteria has 5 flagellation arrangements Monotrichous Lophotrichous Amphitrichous Retrichous Atrichous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizone Andrew ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Graham Beards - Gram or gram — The style used on the page - long-standing, has been for the use of lower case. There have been seemingly unresolved arguments re this but as far as I am aware due to the ambivalent usage in various sources the style choice was left to the editors - some pages use one type others use the other. Gram stain uses lower case as does gram-negative as an editor wishing to change the style usage it ought to have been taken to talk page - that's why MOS:VAR was cited. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
In the article it says that only bacteria and some archea can synthesize Vitamin B12. This is simply not true. Humans can indeed synthesize Vitamin B12, people have been making and selling vitamin supplements for years. -- ApChrKey Talk 11:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not an improvement. [11] The prose is not FA standard and there is an inaccuracy. The Kingdom is Eubacteria not Bacteria. And, "Typically a few micrometres in length, bacteria..." is much better prose than " Being prokaryotic microorganisms, they are typically...". And there is an annoying repetition of "kingdom" (four times in one sentence. We usually discuss edits to Featured Articles on the Talk Page first. -- Graham Beards ( talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
What, the evolutionary cabal that run Wikipedia lock another page, surely not? Scared of the truth guys?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.34 ( talk)