This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Giardia duodenalis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Giardia duodenalis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Giardia duodenalis at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original version of this article was taken from the public domain source at http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/releases/giardia.html -- site is a U.S. Federal government site, and the author has a U.S. Federal Government E-mail address and is listed on the staff directory. The Anome 22:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
There is also another image uploaded at image:giardia.jpg, but it's not as good-looking, but I thought I'd mention it here less it become an orphan.
Kingdom Animalia -- Animal, animals, animaux Phylum Sarcomastigophora Subphylum Mastigophora -- flagellated protozoans Class Zoomastigophora Order Diplomonadida Family Hexamitidae and they are always running in your body! Genus Giardia Kunstler, 1882 Species Giardia lamblia Kofoid and Christiansen, 1915
ITIS uses the old morphological classifications for protozoa, which are simply obsolete. They generally conflict with newer schemes, which I have been using where possible, and to some extent with themselves - Ochromonas belongs just as much to the Mastigophora as it does to the Chrysophyta. Using them would be easy, but I don't think it's worth it. All the information in the above is contained in a statement like "Giardia belongs to a group of colorless flagellate protozoa called diplomonads", and that sort of opening sentence would be better for letting people know where they are anyways. Taxoboxes should be omitted when there is no acceptable classification, as is the case for many Protista; doing otherwise is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood.
That said, the top-level groups of protists have stabilized to the point where phyla can generally be given. If you felt it was absolutely necessary to give a taxobox, diplomonads should either be treated as an independent phylum Diplomonadida, or as an order within the phylum Metamonada (possibly class Trepomonadea, but that may not be a valid concept). Which scheme we use depends on what's better for other related protozoa, however.
So, it now looks like there's enough evidence that the metamonads can be used as a stable group, though the oxymonads may still end up somewhere else. I've added a taxobox accordingly. Josh
The article by Robert L. Rockwell linked below by Freeheel ought to be cited and somehow incorporated into the Wikipedia article. I may take a stab at it. It's a review of numerous scholarly articles and suggests, as noted by Freeheel, that the perceived threat of Giardia from backcountry water sources in the Sierra Nevada is way overblown. Calamitybrook ( talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
All public health agencies with which I am familiar recommend treating or filtering backcountry water. Here is my response to the Rockwell article and statements from others skeptical that people are getting giardiasis from backcountry water: http://bucktrack.blogspot.com/2011/03/waterborne-giardia-for-backpackers-no.html I would like to see mention of the infectious dose in this article, which is often cited as 10-25 cysts but I think is more accurately one or more cysts. Please see my link for more. 4.254.84.48 ( talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That's all very scientific, but I was hoping for some practical tips for prevention/treatment of giardia. I heard that this is disease is something to be worried about when I go camping in British Columbia, and that I should be using a water filter at all times. Is this true? How likely is it that I will suffer "diarrhea and abdominal cramps" after drinking water from a BC campsite? According to this website: http://giardiaclub.com/ ...a water filter is essential, but then they're selling them! -- Nojer2 16:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further to my earlier comments, I read somewhere that the giardia cyst tends to sink to the bottom of lakes and streams. So one way to avoid it is to scoop your water from the surface. This probably wouldn't help much if you only had fast running water to scoop from. The answer there is to get your water from the quieter sections of rivers and streams. This may have something to do with the people in the Adarondak Mountain region in the eastern USA seeming to be the most paranoid about it since they are drinking mostly from small shallow streams. Some people have told me that giardia is quite common there and how much of that knowledge is hearsay I don't know. I have read in some statistical information published by the USA government that giardia is most prevalent in daycare facilities were they are constantly changing diapers and, presumably,not washing hands as well as they should.Peter Van Wagner. 4.4.05.
I thought dengue was "Beaver fever", not giardiasis....?
Get a filter!! <-- this is coming from someone suffering horrible diarrhea and really bad stomach pain, not a filter company.
You must excuse the incompleteness of this post, ie no other references, but my own research, with a Dr. Lower has confirmed that 'testing' for giardia is not 100% accruate.
That is the test for giardia must be repeated 4 to 5 times, that is 4 - 5 times before you can rule out the possibility of Giardia.
So the problem is that people suffering from 'the symptoms' get tested once, and if the test is negative, falsely believe that they do not have giardia.
Now the problem is compounded because chronic intestinal problems can lead to a variety of symptoms that we label as 'diseases'.
I will be following up by doing research on the City of Walkerton, referred to as the Walkerton Tragedy whereby animal waste entered the water supply, and going by visual reports on TV, some of the individuals developed MS type symptoms; so the potential of neurological symptoms is very likely.
Question is why is this not being researched and exposed ?
There must be a wealth of knowledge to be gained by this unfortunate experience.
-- Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Of the 675 people who submitted stool samples, 57% submitted samples that tested negative for both E. coli and Campylobacter. A negative test result does not necessarily mean the person was not infected. It might also mean that (1) the person had stopped or was intermittently shedding the bacteria, (2) the culture was not tested before the bacteria died, (3) the culture was mishandled, or (4) another pathogen was responsible for the symptoms. Accordingly, it is possible that some or all of the people who tested negative were in fact infected, or had previously been infected."
From the Wakerton report it becomes evident that this important problem with testing has escaped the attention of the general public and some doctors.
My personal research suggests a great deal of suffering is being played out in our society due to this flaw in testing.
I hope someone who has the time will input this information into the appropriate spots.. Thanks
-- Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some inconsistency in the explanaitons of how to kill this nice little creatures. Some says boiling the water kills it, other adds "if you boil the water for three minutes". Anyone here who knows how hard-killed they are? It sounds surprising they should not die in boiling water before three minutes has passed? This article now states just "boiling". I'm really getting curios here... is this wrong, or is the article right as it is? Greswik 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
A distance scale is needed on the micrograph. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
This succession of words in the article that is close to being a critical recommendation has no verb and is therefore not a sentence and is also not a comprehensible sentence fragment:
Treatment of drinking water for Giardiais not ordinarily indicated in wilderness regions, including much of the Sierra Nevada and other similar locations in North America.
132.239.181.21 ( talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Under "prevention and treatment," I've added a caveat to the statement that treating wilderness water "is indicated" with the clause that "although at least four researchers disagree with this statement." I sourced all four. They are legitimate people.
This is a byproduct of work I've been doing on "Wilderness Diarrhea," where I've outlined their work more fully. I don't intend to get very involved in this article. It looks pretty good to me, but I'm pretty invested in the other one and making sure that these guys' research gets a fair shake. I have a feeling I'll be contributing to "Water Potability" in a similar manner, and perhaps more extensively than here. Calamitybrook ( talk)
Just wondering if this page and the one on Giardiasis should be merged or if this one should be just about the critter itself while the giardiasis page is reserved for the infection and all the stuff about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.-- 209.7.195.158 ( talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be kept separate, there is enough different material for two articles, this one on the biological and veterinary aspects and Giardiasis on the infection in humans. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the article concerning the presence/absence of mitochondria in Giardia between the Intracellular Metabolism para and the prior para:
Distinguishing features of the trophozoites are large karyosomes and lack of peripheral chromatin, giving the two nuclei a halo appearance. Cysts are distinguished by a retracted cytoplasm. This protozoan lacks mitochondria, although the discovery of the presence of mitochodrial remnants organelles in one recent study "indicate that Giardia is not primitively amitochondrial and that it has retained a functional organelle derived from the original mitochondrial endosymbiont"[4]
Intracellular Metabolism and biochemistry
Giardia relies on glucose as its major energy source and breaks glucose down into ethanol, acetate and carbon dioxide.[5] However, it can also use arginine as an energy source.[6] The mitochondria of Giardia possess unique biochemical pathways that suggest that it diverged from other eukaryotes at an early stage in evolution.[6]
....... I am not expert in this, so I'd better not say which I think is right, but the contradictory text should either be tightened up or enlarged/clarified, possibly with an additional section. Punctum ( talk) 15:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you very much for the edit improvement. Looks good. -- Punctum ( talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
the word "giardia" appears far more frequently on the web than does "beaver fever", and a lot of the beaver fevers are about sports teams and sex. And I would add, "giardiasis" is also a more commonly occuring word than beaver fever, and I never hear anybody say it, people say "he got giardia". The article should say that the common name is giardia. Also mentioning "beaver fever" maybe?... I'm not convinced. 68.174.97.122 ( talk) 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Giardia lamblia. 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) 17:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow users, I would like to potentially replace the current species name of lamblia with intestinalis as this does appear to be the new common name for the protozoan. Any thoughts? https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/176718-overview
Lharris15328 ( talk) 22:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Barkerak7064,
Kyleechoate (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Maureencatherine,
Erinhansonuwec,
Packarec3037,
Szydelsa4483.
— Assignment last updated by Erinhansonuwec ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Giardia duodenalis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Giardia duodenalis. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Giardia duodenalis at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The original version of this article was taken from the public domain source at http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/releases/giardia.html -- site is a U.S. Federal government site, and the author has a U.S. Federal Government E-mail address and is listed on the staff directory. The Anome 22:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
There is also another image uploaded at image:giardia.jpg, but it's not as good-looking, but I thought I'd mention it here less it become an orphan.
Kingdom Animalia -- Animal, animals, animaux Phylum Sarcomastigophora Subphylum Mastigophora -- flagellated protozoans Class Zoomastigophora Order Diplomonadida Family Hexamitidae and they are always running in your body! Genus Giardia Kunstler, 1882 Species Giardia lamblia Kofoid and Christiansen, 1915
ITIS uses the old morphological classifications for protozoa, which are simply obsolete. They generally conflict with newer schemes, which I have been using where possible, and to some extent with themselves - Ochromonas belongs just as much to the Mastigophora as it does to the Chrysophyta. Using them would be easy, but I don't think it's worth it. All the information in the above is contained in a statement like "Giardia belongs to a group of colorless flagellate protozoa called diplomonads", and that sort of opening sentence would be better for letting people know where they are anyways. Taxoboxes should be omitted when there is no acceptable classification, as is the case for many Protista; doing otherwise is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood.
That said, the top-level groups of protists have stabilized to the point where phyla can generally be given. If you felt it was absolutely necessary to give a taxobox, diplomonads should either be treated as an independent phylum Diplomonadida, or as an order within the phylum Metamonada (possibly class Trepomonadea, but that may not be a valid concept). Which scheme we use depends on what's better for other related protozoa, however.
So, it now looks like there's enough evidence that the metamonads can be used as a stable group, though the oxymonads may still end up somewhere else. I've added a taxobox accordingly. Josh
The article by Robert L. Rockwell linked below by Freeheel ought to be cited and somehow incorporated into the Wikipedia article. I may take a stab at it. It's a review of numerous scholarly articles and suggests, as noted by Freeheel, that the perceived threat of Giardia from backcountry water sources in the Sierra Nevada is way overblown. Calamitybrook ( talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
All public health agencies with which I am familiar recommend treating or filtering backcountry water. Here is my response to the Rockwell article and statements from others skeptical that people are getting giardiasis from backcountry water: http://bucktrack.blogspot.com/2011/03/waterborne-giardia-for-backpackers-no.html I would like to see mention of the infectious dose in this article, which is often cited as 10-25 cysts but I think is more accurately one or more cysts. Please see my link for more. 4.254.84.48 ( talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That's all very scientific, but I was hoping for some practical tips for prevention/treatment of giardia. I heard that this is disease is something to be worried about when I go camping in British Columbia, and that I should be using a water filter at all times. Is this true? How likely is it that I will suffer "diarrhea and abdominal cramps" after drinking water from a BC campsite? According to this website: http://giardiaclub.com/ ...a water filter is essential, but then they're selling them! -- Nojer2 16:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Further to my earlier comments, I read somewhere that the giardia cyst tends to sink to the bottom of lakes and streams. So one way to avoid it is to scoop your water from the surface. This probably wouldn't help much if you only had fast running water to scoop from. The answer there is to get your water from the quieter sections of rivers and streams. This may have something to do with the people in the Adarondak Mountain region in the eastern USA seeming to be the most paranoid about it since they are drinking mostly from small shallow streams. Some people have told me that giardia is quite common there and how much of that knowledge is hearsay I don't know. I have read in some statistical information published by the USA government that giardia is most prevalent in daycare facilities were they are constantly changing diapers and, presumably,not washing hands as well as they should.Peter Van Wagner. 4.4.05.
I thought dengue was "Beaver fever", not giardiasis....?
Get a filter!! <-- this is coming from someone suffering horrible diarrhea and really bad stomach pain, not a filter company.
You must excuse the incompleteness of this post, ie no other references, but my own research, with a Dr. Lower has confirmed that 'testing' for giardia is not 100% accruate.
That is the test for giardia must be repeated 4 to 5 times, that is 4 - 5 times before you can rule out the possibility of Giardia.
So the problem is that people suffering from 'the symptoms' get tested once, and if the test is negative, falsely believe that they do not have giardia.
Now the problem is compounded because chronic intestinal problems can lead to a variety of symptoms that we label as 'diseases'.
I will be following up by doing research on the City of Walkerton, referred to as the Walkerton Tragedy whereby animal waste entered the water supply, and going by visual reports on TV, some of the individuals developed MS type symptoms; so the potential of neurological symptoms is very likely.
Question is why is this not being researched and exposed ?
There must be a wealth of knowledge to be gained by this unfortunate experience.
-- Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Of the 675 people who submitted stool samples, 57% submitted samples that tested negative for both E. coli and Campylobacter. A negative test result does not necessarily mean the person was not infected. It might also mean that (1) the person had stopped or was intermittently shedding the bacteria, (2) the culture was not tested before the bacteria died, (3) the culture was mishandled, or (4) another pathogen was responsible for the symptoms. Accordingly, it is possible that some or all of the people who tested negative were in fact infected, or had previously been infected."
From the Wakerton report it becomes evident that this important problem with testing has escaped the attention of the general public and some doctors.
My personal research suggests a great deal of suffering is being played out in our society due to this flaw in testing.
I hope someone who has the time will input this information into the appropriate spots.. Thanks
-- Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some inconsistency in the explanaitons of how to kill this nice little creatures. Some says boiling the water kills it, other adds "if you boil the water for three minutes". Anyone here who knows how hard-killed they are? It sounds surprising they should not die in boiling water before three minutes has passed? This article now states just "boiling". I'm really getting curios here... is this wrong, or is the article right as it is? Greswik 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
A distance scale is needed on the micrograph. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
This succession of words in the article that is close to being a critical recommendation has no verb and is therefore not a sentence and is also not a comprehensible sentence fragment:
Treatment of drinking water for Giardiais not ordinarily indicated in wilderness regions, including much of the Sierra Nevada and other similar locations in North America.
132.239.181.21 ( talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Under "prevention and treatment," I've added a caveat to the statement that treating wilderness water "is indicated" with the clause that "although at least four researchers disagree with this statement." I sourced all four. They are legitimate people.
This is a byproduct of work I've been doing on "Wilderness Diarrhea," where I've outlined their work more fully. I don't intend to get very involved in this article. It looks pretty good to me, but I'm pretty invested in the other one and making sure that these guys' research gets a fair shake. I have a feeling I'll be contributing to "Water Potability" in a similar manner, and perhaps more extensively than here. Calamitybrook ( talk)
Just wondering if this page and the one on Giardiasis should be merged or if this one should be just about the critter itself while the giardiasis page is reserved for the infection and all the stuff about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.-- 209.7.195.158 ( talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be kept separate, there is enough different material for two articles, this one on the biological and veterinary aspects and Giardiasis on the infection in humans. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the article concerning the presence/absence of mitochondria in Giardia between the Intracellular Metabolism para and the prior para:
Distinguishing features of the trophozoites are large karyosomes and lack of peripheral chromatin, giving the two nuclei a halo appearance. Cysts are distinguished by a retracted cytoplasm. This protozoan lacks mitochondria, although the discovery of the presence of mitochodrial remnants organelles in one recent study "indicate that Giardia is not primitively amitochondrial and that it has retained a functional organelle derived from the original mitochondrial endosymbiont"[4]
Intracellular Metabolism and biochemistry
Giardia relies on glucose as its major energy source and breaks glucose down into ethanol, acetate and carbon dioxide.[5] However, it can also use arginine as an energy source.[6] The mitochondria of Giardia possess unique biochemical pathways that suggest that it diverged from other eukaryotes at an early stage in evolution.[6]
....... I am not expert in this, so I'd better not say which I think is right, but the contradictory text should either be tightened up or enlarged/clarified, possibly with an additional section. Punctum ( talk) 15:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and thank you very much for the edit improvement. Looks good. -- Punctum ( talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
the word "giardia" appears far more frequently on the web than does "beaver fever", and a lot of the beaver fevers are about sports teams and sex. And I would add, "giardiasis" is also a more commonly occuring word than beaver fever, and I never hear anybody say it, people say "he got giardia". The article should say that the common name is giardia. Also mentioning "beaver fever" maybe?... I'm not convinced. 68.174.97.122 ( talk) 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Giardia lamblia. 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) 17:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow users, I would like to potentially replace the current species name of lamblia with intestinalis as this does appear to be the new common name for the protozoan. Any thoughts? https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/176718-overview
Lharris15328 ( talk) 22:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Barkerak7064,
Kyleechoate (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Maureencatherine,
Erinhansonuwec,
Packarec3037,
Szydelsa4483.
— Assignment last updated by Erinhansonuwec ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)