![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BRogers42. Peer reviewers:
Stefanija Kovacevic,
Liambuirs,
Seba5..Zed8.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"A famous example is the conversion of a harmless strain of Vibrio cholerae by a phage into a highly virulent one, which causes cholera. This is why temperate phages are not suitable for phage therapy." Such a STUPID SENTENCE : it's not because it could be dangerous that it's never going to be useful!! Looks very much like some antibiotic proselytism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.179.216 ( talk) 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any word about the possible dangers of a) phage therapy and b) using the things with food? Is it possible that a bacteriophage would infect a human cell? _sd
- Bacteriophage is highly specialized to attack bacterial cell and they can't attach or attack human cell. There is a small danger that the phage code for a virulence factor and can increase the virulence of a bacteria. For exemple, the pathogenicity of some strains of Vibro cholerae (cholera)can be explain by the presence of prophage in their genome. This kind of phenomenon is possible only with temperate phages. But, there are some rules for the phages used in the food or therapy. These phages are extensively studied to verify the possible presence of these kind of virulence factor and some of the interesting phage are lytic (these phages don't have the possibility to integrate their DNA, then we avoid the lysogenic state). H. Deveau (August 26, 2006)
There are dangers, but they would be indirect. One danger of phage therapy is that it might be used instead of more appropriate and effective treatments. Another, relevant to the use of any chemical or virus or genetic engineering, is that the organisms may develop resstance. It is trivially easy in the laboratory to select bacteria that are rsistant to any given bacteriophage, and as H.Devoe mentions, the biology of such resistance is well-studied. The use on food would have similar problems. It is better to process meat so it does not contain Listeria than to treat the contamination. DGG 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentance tells us that phages do not move of theirown accord; - As phage virions do not move, they must rely on random encounters with the right receptors when in solution (blood and lymphatic circulation)., however this sentence seems contradictory; - When an effective phage has been found it will seek out the bacteria and continue to kill bacteria of that type until they are all gone.
Can somebody please correct this? Parasite 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
a possible citation - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/19/48hours/main522596.shtml
The link doesn't really have anything to do with bacteriophages, other than that those aliens suffer from a disease called "the phage". I've removed the link. CatBoris 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone feel the prophage article warrants existence? It's very small and could easily be redirected here. Since this is the only 'parent' topic it relates to, I see no reason to have a separate article unless there is so much content on the subject that it can't be adequately covered here. Richard001 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence that stated as a blunt fact that patent difficulty surrounding phages is the reason mainstream pharma companies are 'reluctant' to pursue the developments of phage therapies. The single quote supporting this assertion is from a doctor working at a company developing phage therapy -- hardly an unbiased source, and irrelevant to the scope of the article as a whole. palecur 06:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Further minor edit: Removed verbage about how phages are more 'accurate' and 'potent' than drug therapy, since there was no source offered beyond the bare assertion. Likewise the statements about side effects. palecur 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Question? What is going on with the development of bacteriophages for use in the USA for medical purposes? What is preventing this technology from being developed and brought to market? Is the technology not actually viable? Or are there other factors? ReasonableLogicalMan 13:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman ( talk • contribs)
Seems like the last paragraph of "Phage Therapy" is an unscrupulous plug for a Georgian medical practice. Given that Georgia is not generally considered to be part of Europe, the statement that it is suggests someone might be trying to legitimatize this medical practice. The phrase "low cost" and the uncredited anecdote of healed westerners only makes the paragraph less believable and more like an advertisement. This paragraph might need to be removed, or significantly altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.231.227 ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The second and fifth articles of this section are still listed as "Citation Needed". When will this be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.48.50 ( talk) 13:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"Talk of the Nation"/"Science Friday"/"Using "Phage" Viruses to Help Fight Infection" / April 4, 2008: There are estimated to be 10^32 of them. Kdammers ( talk) 03:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following as unreferenced:
Can someone find a cite for this, please, before restoring it to the article? -- The Anome ( talk) 07:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed some links to individual research centers, companies, and similar. See WP:EL. Before re-adding, explain here. 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reading in this blog about a potential food safety issue regarding phages infecting bacteria, and then giving the bacteria the gene to produce a toxin. Obviously, if the person gets this phage through a bad peice of meat, they are in trouble. Does anyone have further information in regards to the danger phages might pose to humans? Linkthewindow ( talk) 11:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The words "enveloped" and "non-enveloped" are used in the chart but are not explained or linked to an appropriate reference that explains their meaning. MATThematical ( talk) 22:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information about this seemingly important question/concern? DanaUllman Talk 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've corrected the taxonomic table to make clear that only the first three families shown belong to the Order Caudovirales (see the Wikipedia article on Caudovirales). None of the other families are assigned to an Order, and this is reflected in their code in the Index of Viruses published by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which in each such case begins with 00. See the Wikipedia article on International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, and for example, in the case of the Leviviridae, http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/Ictv/fs_leviv.htm. Richard Lugg ( talk) 16:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a bit more elucidation could help non-expert readers like me. I don't have enough certainty to make the edits, but I'd like to see two things:
Urilarim ( talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The section about bacteriophages being very numerous in marine environments in correct and has been demonstrated multiple times. One report early in these studies is Breitbart, M, P Salamon, B Andresen, J Mahaffy, A Segall, D Mead, F Azam, F Rohwer (2002) Genomic analysis of uncultured marine viral communities. Proceedings of the National Academy USA. 99:14250-14255. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayspace273 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The plural form phage seems to become more popular. I've added it to wikt:phage with references, maybe it should also be mentioned here. The second reference (a 1984 textbook) tries to make a semantic distinction, but I'm not sure if this is how it is used in practice.-- 88.73.44.100 ( talk) 17:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The plot of Michael Crichton's novel Swarm relies heavily on phages, their antibacterial actions, and how they might be made commerically. May I add this? Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I've sorted the table, and reworded a few entries to make common traits more apparent. To allow full sorting the Nucleic acid and Morphology columns would have to be each split in two though (acid & shape, envelope & form). -- Belg4mit ( talk) 02:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Michael Crichton's "Prey" deals with a number of aspects of the microbial world, with a phage that digests E.Coli being one of them. 58.167.91.92 ( talk) 10:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It is known that the Russian microbiologist Nikolay Gamaleya more in 1897 first observed the phenomenon of lysis of bacteria (anthrax bacillus) under the influence of transplantable agent. http://school188spb.narod.ru/vir_bak.htm http://o-med.ru/bakteriofag.php Vashot ( talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The first line in the "History" section reads: "In 1896, Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had marked antibacterial action against cholera and could pass through a very fine porcelain filter," with a citation needed tag. I tried to find some literature regarding it and found an article suggesting that the Hankin reference was not talking about a bacteriophage at all. Maybe it would be best to remove that line, or perhaps put it elsewhere with a mention that it's debated. Pandarsson ( talk) 13:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bacteriophage. 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) 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
User 199.212.251.15 claimed to add "a crutial fact about viruses", by displaying a link to virus as [[virus|organism]]. This is controversial: The Encyclopedia of Life says that "A virus is a microscopic organism". However, the Wikipedia article on organism claims that more common definitions insist that an organism must be capable of reproduction.
This article is not a place to take sides in that controversy. As of 2018-05-14 the word "organism" appears twice later in the text in ways that imply that a virus may be an organism but do not seem as confrontational.
This comment supports the reversion made by user:Natureium. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Doseiai2 added a sentence to the lead, which I edited to make it hopefully easier to read as follows: "Previous studies of bacteriophages tended to be shunned in the West because of scientific uncertainty of which exact organisms were infecting bacteria. A 2018 study highly suggests that diverse phages work in a team to take out bacterial defenses." It would help to convert this link into the standard <ref>...</ref> format using a standard Wikipedia:Citation templates. Sadly, I don't feel I can take the time for this right now. Hopefully someone else can do this. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 01:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
User:184.60.208.105 deleted some text claiming s/he "Got rid of a conspiracy theory." The deletion is as follows:
Only the last sentence does not seem solidly grounded in sources that seem credible to me. That sentence is a distortion of claims I've seen in the literature but cannot find right now in the time I have available for this. I plan to restore the rest of this deletion. If User:184.60.208.105 or anyone else wishes to contest this, let's discuss here. Thanks. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
As of 2018-08018 the section on "Phage therapy" begins, "Phages were discovered to be antibacterial agents and were used in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia (pioneered there by Giorgi Eliava with help from the co-discoverer of bacteriophages, Felix d'Herelle) and in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s for treating bacterial infections."
Is this correct regarding "and in the United States"? I am NOT a phage therapy expert, but I do not recall having seen that, and if it were true, I think I would have seen it in the sources I've read. I therefore plan to delete that phrase. If someone things otherwise, they should provide a credible source.
Also, it is my understanding that they were used all over the Soviet Union. However, I don't have time to check my sources on that right now, so I'll leave that as is for the moment. Thanks. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Phage.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 24, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-24. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If there are any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
A bacteriophage is a virus that infects and replicates within bacteria and archaea. Bacteriophages are among the most common and diverse entities in the biosphere, found wherever bacteria are present. Early evidence of their existence came when the English bacteriologist Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported in 1896 that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had a marked antibacterial action against cholera, but was so minute that it could pass through a very fine porcelain filter. This picture is a transmission electron micrograph at approximately 200,000× magnification, showing numerous bacteriophages attached to the exterior of a bacterium's cell wall. Photograph credit: Graham Beards
Recently featured:
|
Trimton: Are you questioning the relevance because there is only one sentence about the Nobel, this is the only mention of Delbrück et al, and it doesn't mention phages? It does seem relevant to me but I think it could use more explanation. It's almost as if someone came through Wikipedia and scrubbed all discussion of the 1969 physiology Nobel. For example the Nobel is only mentioned in passing at the article on Salvador Luria, with no discussion of what he actually did or the significance of the work. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This article currently says the Nobel was awarded "for their discoveries of the replication of viruses and their genetic structure". Sure, bacteriophages are viruses. But what does the reader do with that information? It's not directly relevant to bacteriophages, unless the Nobel was in part awarded for bacteriophage research. Was it? Trimton ( talk) 23:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Why bacteriophage virus is a complex virus??? 42.201.192.22 ( talk) 16:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lifessojourner (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lifessojourner ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I am going to add a section on the lysogenic nature of some bacteriophage that work symbiotically with their bacterial host. These prophage often contribute to a fitness advantage. The prophage wiki article doesn't seem to mention the beneficial nature some phage integrations offer to their bacterial host either, but I feel that ultimately this section would be best served here in the Bacteriophage article as it will refer directly to bacteriophage integration and subsequent host symbiosis. I do believe this article is missing this key aspect of the bacteriophage/bacteria relationship. - Lifessojourner Lifessojourner ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Graham Beards ( talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Please add some info on/from this study to the article, possibly into a new section. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
A study reports phages have a large variety of CRISPR-Cas systems. They possibly may clarification needed use them to edit hosts' genes and for competitive advantages, e.g. against rival phages. how? These systems could be useful for CRISPR-Cas gene editing. [1] [2] [3]
If nobody adds it (you could use an extended version of the above text), please at least clarify the tagged issues so I can add it instead in a probably quite suboptimal way. The content may also be relevant elsewhere but I'm not sure if, where and how.
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 15:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Current citation link is incorrect. Link should be to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2008.05.001 Where they estimate 10^31, however, they themselves provide no calculation details. 2600:1700:89A0:1470:8DDD:F9B6:EA00:C718 ( talk) 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
BRogers42. Peer reviewers:
Stefanija Kovacevic,
Liambuirs,
Seba5..Zed8.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"A famous example is the conversion of a harmless strain of Vibrio cholerae by a phage into a highly virulent one, which causes cholera. This is why temperate phages are not suitable for phage therapy." Such a STUPID SENTENCE : it's not because it could be dangerous that it's never going to be useful!! Looks very much like some antibiotic proselytism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.179.216 ( talk) 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any word about the possible dangers of a) phage therapy and b) using the things with food? Is it possible that a bacteriophage would infect a human cell? _sd
- Bacteriophage is highly specialized to attack bacterial cell and they can't attach or attack human cell. There is a small danger that the phage code for a virulence factor and can increase the virulence of a bacteria. For exemple, the pathogenicity of some strains of Vibro cholerae (cholera)can be explain by the presence of prophage in their genome. This kind of phenomenon is possible only with temperate phages. But, there are some rules for the phages used in the food or therapy. These phages are extensively studied to verify the possible presence of these kind of virulence factor and some of the interesting phage are lytic (these phages don't have the possibility to integrate their DNA, then we avoid the lysogenic state). H. Deveau (August 26, 2006)
There are dangers, but they would be indirect. One danger of phage therapy is that it might be used instead of more appropriate and effective treatments. Another, relevant to the use of any chemical or virus or genetic engineering, is that the organisms may develop resstance. It is trivially easy in the laboratory to select bacteria that are rsistant to any given bacteriophage, and as H.Devoe mentions, the biology of such resistance is well-studied. The use on food would have similar problems. It is better to process meat so it does not contain Listeria than to treat the contamination. DGG 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentance tells us that phages do not move of theirown accord; - As phage virions do not move, they must rely on random encounters with the right receptors when in solution (blood and lymphatic circulation)., however this sentence seems contradictory; - When an effective phage has been found it will seek out the bacteria and continue to kill bacteria of that type until they are all gone.
Can somebody please correct this? Parasite 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
a possible citation - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/19/48hours/main522596.shtml
The link doesn't really have anything to do with bacteriophages, other than that those aliens suffer from a disease called "the phage". I've removed the link. CatBoris 14:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone feel the prophage article warrants existence? It's very small and could easily be redirected here. Since this is the only 'parent' topic it relates to, I see no reason to have a separate article unless there is so much content on the subject that it can't be adequately covered here. Richard001 04:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence that stated as a blunt fact that patent difficulty surrounding phages is the reason mainstream pharma companies are 'reluctant' to pursue the developments of phage therapies. The single quote supporting this assertion is from a doctor working at a company developing phage therapy -- hardly an unbiased source, and irrelevant to the scope of the article as a whole. palecur 06:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Further minor edit: Removed verbage about how phages are more 'accurate' and 'potent' than drug therapy, since there was no source offered beyond the bare assertion. Likewise the statements about side effects. palecur 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Question? What is going on with the development of bacteriophages for use in the USA for medical purposes? What is preventing this technology from being developed and brought to market? Is the technology not actually viable? Or are there other factors? ReasonableLogicalMan 13:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonablelogicalman ( talk • contribs)
Seems like the last paragraph of "Phage Therapy" is an unscrupulous plug for a Georgian medical practice. Given that Georgia is not generally considered to be part of Europe, the statement that it is suggests someone might be trying to legitimatize this medical practice. The phrase "low cost" and the uncredited anecdote of healed westerners only makes the paragraph less believable and more like an advertisement. This paragraph might need to be removed, or significantly altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.231.227 ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The second and fifth articles of this section are still listed as "Citation Needed". When will this be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.48.50 ( talk) 13:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"Talk of the Nation"/"Science Friday"/"Using "Phage" Viruses to Help Fight Infection" / April 4, 2008: There are estimated to be 10^32 of them. Kdammers ( talk) 03:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following as unreferenced:
Can someone find a cite for this, please, before restoring it to the article? -- The Anome ( talk) 07:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed some links to individual research centers, companies, and similar. See WP:EL. Before re-adding, explain here. 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I was reading in this blog about a potential food safety issue regarding phages infecting bacteria, and then giving the bacteria the gene to produce a toxin. Obviously, if the person gets this phage through a bad peice of meat, they are in trouble. Does anyone have further information in regards to the danger phages might pose to humans? Linkthewindow ( talk) 11:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The words "enveloped" and "non-enveloped" are used in the chart but are not explained or linked to an appropriate reference that explains their meaning. MATThematical ( talk) 22:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information about this seemingly important question/concern? DanaUllman Talk 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've corrected the taxonomic table to make clear that only the first three families shown belong to the Order Caudovirales (see the Wikipedia article on Caudovirales). None of the other families are assigned to an Order, and this is reflected in their code in the Index of Viruses published by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which in each such case begins with 00. See the Wikipedia article on International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, and for example, in the case of the Leviviridae, http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/Ictv/fs_leviv.htm. Richard Lugg ( talk) 16:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a bit more elucidation could help non-expert readers like me. I don't have enough certainty to make the edits, but I'd like to see two things:
Urilarim ( talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The section about bacteriophages being very numerous in marine environments in correct and has been demonstrated multiple times. One report early in these studies is Breitbart, M, P Salamon, B Andresen, J Mahaffy, A Segall, D Mead, F Azam, F Rohwer (2002) Genomic analysis of uncultured marine viral communities. Proceedings of the National Academy USA. 99:14250-14255. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayspace273 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The plural form phage seems to become more popular. I've added it to wikt:phage with references, maybe it should also be mentioned here. The second reference (a 1984 textbook) tries to make a semantic distinction, but I'm not sure if this is how it is used in practice.-- 88.73.44.100 ( talk) 17:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The plot of Michael Crichton's novel Swarm relies heavily on phages, their antibacterial actions, and how they might be made commerically. May I add this? Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I've sorted the table, and reworded a few entries to make common traits more apparent. To allow full sorting the Nucleic acid and Morphology columns would have to be each split in two though (acid & shape, envelope & form). -- Belg4mit ( talk) 02:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Michael Crichton's "Prey" deals with a number of aspects of the microbial world, with a phage that digests E.Coli being one of them. 58.167.91.92 ( talk) 10:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It is known that the Russian microbiologist Nikolay Gamaleya more in 1897 first observed the phenomenon of lysis of bacteria (anthrax bacillus) under the influence of transplantable agent. http://school188spb.narod.ru/vir_bak.htm http://o-med.ru/bakteriofag.php Vashot ( talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The first line in the "History" section reads: "In 1896, Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had marked antibacterial action against cholera and could pass through a very fine porcelain filter," with a citation needed tag. I tried to find some literature regarding it and found an article suggesting that the Hankin reference was not talking about a bacteriophage at all. Maybe it would be best to remove that line, or perhaps put it elsewhere with a mention that it's debated. Pandarsson ( talk) 13:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bacteriophage. 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) 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
User 199.212.251.15 claimed to add "a crutial fact about viruses", by displaying a link to virus as [[virus|organism]]. This is controversial: The Encyclopedia of Life says that "A virus is a microscopic organism". However, the Wikipedia article on organism claims that more common definitions insist that an organism must be capable of reproduction.
This article is not a place to take sides in that controversy. As of 2018-05-14 the word "organism" appears twice later in the text in ways that imply that a virus may be an organism but do not seem as confrontational.
This comment supports the reversion made by user:Natureium. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Doseiai2 added a sentence to the lead, which I edited to make it hopefully easier to read as follows: "Previous studies of bacteriophages tended to be shunned in the West because of scientific uncertainty of which exact organisms were infecting bacteria. A 2018 study highly suggests that diverse phages work in a team to take out bacterial defenses." It would help to convert this link into the standard <ref>...</ref> format using a standard Wikipedia:Citation templates. Sadly, I don't feel I can take the time for this right now. Hopefully someone else can do this. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 01:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
User:184.60.208.105 deleted some text claiming s/he "Got rid of a conspiracy theory." The deletion is as follows:
Only the last sentence does not seem solidly grounded in sources that seem credible to me. That sentence is a distortion of claims I've seen in the literature but cannot find right now in the time I have available for this. I plan to restore the rest of this deletion. If User:184.60.208.105 or anyone else wishes to contest this, let's discuss here. Thanks. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
As of 2018-08018 the section on "Phage therapy" begins, "Phages were discovered to be antibacterial agents and were used in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia (pioneered there by Giorgi Eliava with help from the co-discoverer of bacteriophages, Felix d'Herelle) and in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s for treating bacterial infections."
Is this correct regarding "and in the United States"? I am NOT a phage therapy expert, but I do not recall having seen that, and if it were true, I think I would have seen it in the sources I've read. I therefore plan to delete that phrase. If someone things otherwise, they should provide a credible source.
Also, it is my understanding that they were used all over the Soviet Union. However, I don't have time to check my sources on that right now, so I'll leave that as is for the moment. Thanks. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Phage.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 24, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-24. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If there are any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
A bacteriophage is a virus that infects and replicates within bacteria and archaea. Bacteriophages are among the most common and diverse entities in the biosphere, found wherever bacteria are present. Early evidence of their existence came when the English bacteriologist Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported in 1896 that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had a marked antibacterial action against cholera, but was so minute that it could pass through a very fine porcelain filter. This picture is a transmission electron micrograph at approximately 200,000× magnification, showing numerous bacteriophages attached to the exterior of a bacterium's cell wall. Photograph credit: Graham Beards
Recently featured:
|
Trimton: Are you questioning the relevance because there is only one sentence about the Nobel, this is the only mention of Delbrück et al, and it doesn't mention phages? It does seem relevant to me but I think it could use more explanation. It's almost as if someone came through Wikipedia and scrubbed all discussion of the 1969 physiology Nobel. For example the Nobel is only mentioned in passing at the article on Salvador Luria, with no discussion of what he actually did or the significance of the work. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This article currently says the Nobel was awarded "for their discoveries of the replication of viruses and their genetic structure". Sure, bacteriophages are viruses. But what does the reader do with that information? It's not directly relevant to bacteriophages, unless the Nobel was in part awarded for bacteriophage research. Was it? Trimton ( talk) 23:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Why bacteriophage virus is a complex virus??? 42.201.192.22 ( talk) 16:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lifessojourner (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lifessojourner ( talk) 00:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I am going to add a section on the lysogenic nature of some bacteriophage that work symbiotically with their bacterial host. These prophage often contribute to a fitness advantage. The prophage wiki article doesn't seem to mention the beneficial nature some phage integrations offer to their bacterial host either, but I feel that ultimately this section would be best served here in the Bacteriophage article as it will refer directly to bacteriophage integration and subsequent host symbiosis. I do believe this article is missing this key aspect of the bacteriophage/bacteria relationship. - Lifessojourner Lifessojourner ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Graham Beards ( talk) 19:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Please add some info on/from this study to the article, possibly into a new section. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
A study reports phages have a large variety of CRISPR-Cas systems. They possibly may clarification needed use them to edit hosts' genes and for competitive advantages, e.g. against rival phages. how? These systems could be useful for CRISPR-Cas gene editing. [1] [2] [3]
If nobody adds it (you could use an extended version of the above text), please at least clarify the tagged issues so I can add it instead in a probably quite suboptimal way. The content may also be relevant elsewhere but I'm not sure if, where and how.
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 15:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Current citation link is incorrect. Link should be to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2008.05.001 Where they estimate 10^31, however, they themselves provide no calculation details. 2600:1700:89A0:1470:8DDD:F9B6:EA00:C718 ( talk) 17:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)