Talk:Staphylococcus aureus

Virulence

Could someone write something about its virulence as well? It's beta-haemolytic, however I'm not too sure what agent caused it.

In 1997, physicians were alarmed to encounter staph strains that resist even vancomycin, Was that really 1997? IMO more likely 2002 or so. 141.83.15.155 13:13 27 Jun 2003 (UTC).

It was in 1997. Read the literature.

---

What can I say? Whatever kills the S.U. at source in hospitals is good. Notable is that infections start in hospitals.Revise the disinfection processes instead.

--203.15.122.35 04:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) "Notable is that infections start in hospitals." While that once was true, it is a false statement in current times. I almost died with misdiagnosed MRSA last year, and I had not been in a hospital. Neither had the half dozen people I know who've had it in the last 2 years. Today's common strain is passed through schools, gyms, and is picked up by many who are not in hospitals/clinics. ````

History

Could someone provide the history of the exploration of this bacteria? When was it found? What role did people think it had? Etc.

Orthomolecular

Recently, 203.61.130.245 and 203.61.124.91 have been inserting large amounts of very poor edits into this article. I feel the surest way to balance is reverting the whole lot, which is what I did.

There are many problems with the material. For one thing, the editor seems never to have heard about wikilinks. Furthermore, he/she does not state that all material inserted is from the POV of orthomolecular medicine, which may sound deceptively scientific but is considered quackery (or worse) by mainstream practicioners. If anyone disagrees, I'll retrieve the old version and hammer it into something sensible, but at the moment I feel nothing of note can be salvaged. JFW | T@lk 15:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Apparently our estimated editor has left not time to complete the edit. Nor has he heard about the role of phenol's bactericidal properties (antiseptic), which are widely used in industry for disinfectation. Phenol much less referred to the academic papers on the properties of phenols on bacterial cultures. The reason for the addition on Phenolic_compounds was that Golden Staph specifically has developed high resistance to traditional antibiotic treatments and new line antibiotics such as Vancomycin. Alternative treatments would be useful to sufferers of Golden Staph after all alternatives have been exhausted.

I suppose it holds no credit? Much less when contained within Wiki's 'quality articles'(!?)

Can this be termed 'quack' or 'orthomolecular'?

I think items deemed POV should have been flagged for further editing rather than mere deletion without advice.

I think more editing needed. Please reply --203.61.128.108 12:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope you are not advocating the adminstration of phenol to combat Staphylococcal infections. It may not be known as carcinogenic (while benzene is), but it is still poison. It may kill the patient before the Staphylococcus does.

where is your source please?

Secondly, please do not use articles as a notepad. Some users (including myself) prepare articles on an application like Notepad, then brush it up and finally insert it in the wiki. It may actually stop getting your work reverted.

Your edits will also have a greater chance of survival if you do the following: (1) Indicate that what you propose is not commonly done in healthcare setting. (2) Provide references from peer-reviewed journals (internet links are second-best). (3) Tolerate that others modify what you write.

Please do not construe this as suppression of your POV. This is an encyclopedia, however, and edits should reflect that reality. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up your work here with your contributions to arthritis, which were indeed from an orthomolecular slant. I'm still not sure what you're trying to say about phenol in Staph infections. JFW | T@lk

Followed on to reply

Phenols are meant to be used as a hospital antiseptic/disinfectant to prevent the spread of G.S. given that infections are often acquired in those said places in high numbers and by extension, gyms and similar locations. I do not think there was an indication as to actual dosaging of patients with phenols to treat G.S. infections. Perhaps, the writing lent itself to misconstruction. Simply preventing the spread of Golden Staph in hospital settings and or medical equipment can greatly improve the chances of non-infection and thus bring death rates down.

A look at hospitals' sanitary proceduresand disinfectantsis in order I think and probably an interesting future article.

Points taken on the notepad recommendation. Thanks. --203.61.124.92 15:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MRSA, can we have a discussion

Both this article and the MRSA article seem to suggest that MRSA is more virulent than MSSA. I'm really not sure if this is correct. The only real difference between the two is the antibiotic susceptibility. The only reason why MRSA should be more virulent is because it proceeds unchecked while non-MRSA antibiotics are administered.

Is there anyone who has different experience? I think we should go for some source material. JFW | T@lk 03:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spread in San Francisco 15-01-2008

The University of California has published a study about the rapid spread of Staphylococcus aureus out hospitals, in San Francisco.You can find the article at [New York Times][1]

Here is Rozgonyi 2007 study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17686137) which found no quantifiable difference in virulence between MRSA and MSSA. However, the study points out that the strains compared are often different. I'd be very interested in any other evidence, particularly to back up the commonly made assertion that CA-MRSA is more virulent still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.20.211 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

MRSA/ORSA more virulent?

The following may be of interest (the links are inefficient, but they do the job):

• Natural history of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection in soldiers.
• Is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus more virulent than methicillin-susceptible S. aureus? A comparative cohort study of British patients with nosocomial infection and bacteremia.
• Nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: is it any worse than nosocomial methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia?
• Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis.
• Comparison of the virulence of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus.

One of the problems with answering a question such as this is that the main drug effective against MRSA (vancomycin) is probably inferior to beta-lactam antibiotics. Randomized controlled trials in this area are difficult. It will be interesting to see the results after a broader experience with linezolid. Polacrilex 03:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polacrilex, you're a star. That didn't take you long! JFW | T@lk 03:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nowadays nearly 100% of the Staphylococcus aureus isolated from human source are resistant to penicillin, so I think that the data of 20% of penicillin resistant is wrong

MRSA definition

The article, as it curently reads, suggests that staph strains resistant to flucloxacillin and its b-lactimase group are termed MRSA just because labs happen to perform the b-lactimase resistance test with the methicillin member of the group. However, my understanding was they are termed MRSA only because they are resistant to methicillin and with no regard for what else the strain may or not be sensitive too. I have occassionally seen microbiology sensitivity reports for staph aureus infections indicating a MRSA strain and with appropriate sensitivites still including flucloxacillin (with which the patients were treated). Of course I accept that most staph strains resistant to methicillin (thus MRSA's) are normally resistant to flucloxacillin too, and so this is then not normally an appropriate drug to start treatment with. David Ruben ^Talk 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible error/confusing statement

By 1950, 40% of hospital S. aureus isolates were penicillin reisistant; and by 1950, this had risen to 80%.

Note both quoted years are 1950. If this is correct, perhaps it could be reworded? The present wording suggests an error (in my opinion).

From the cited source, [1], http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/chambers.htm:

Examination of more than 2,000 blood culture isolates of S. aureus... for 1957 to 1966... confirmed a high prevalence of penicillin resistance (85% to 90%) for hospital isolates of S. aureus.

I hope this is of some assistance. Apologies if the article's current statement is correct & considered satisfactory.

Thanks,

Claynoik 14:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Error

Yes there is an error: By 1950, 40% of hospital S. aureus isolates were penicillin reisistant; and by 1950, this had risen to 80%.

This line should read: By 1947, 39% of hospital S. aureus isolates were penicillin reisistant; and by 1971, this had risen to 90%.

When I report data these are the numbers I often use when I talk about resistance.

-MAJ - UMBC, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering

Golden Staph

I've reverted the introductory sentence to "sometimes known as golden staph" versus the "more commonly known as" sentence; a PudMed search gives ~50,000 hits on "Staphylococcus aureus" and three (yes, 3) hits on "golden staph". -- MarcoTolo 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria properties

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?

Thanks for the help,

Jose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josegc (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Check out ATCC's website. -Kammie (Kammie_C@hotmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.202.162 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

So then my question is...what causes you to get this virus? I have a peritoneal catheter in my abdomen and just this last ten or so months (out of six years) have I been getting this bug over and over again at my exit site. Could it be caused by exposed mould growing in a bathroom? Where would I find proof of this sort of thing? Thanks muchly...

---204.112.157.98 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Staphylococcus aureus isn't a virus (or a mould for that matter), but rather a species of bacteria. S. aureus is, however, an extremely common environmental pathogen and frequently associated with indwelling medical devices (catheters, prosthetic valves, artificial joints, etc). A significant fraction of individuals are S. aureus carriers (up to a third, in some studies), and thus one of your friends/family members/health care providers (or even you) may have been the source of the infection. Since Wikipedia can't give direct medical advice, I suggest you continue to work with your doctor concerning specific treatment options. -- MarcoTolo 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove/Move a line:

Can I transmit MRSA through sexual contact of any kind? I was told by a Doctor at University of Louisville Hospital that I could not, but now I am reading studies that say yes...74.130.186.241 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Staph infections lead to rapid weight loss and muscle depletion. Even after fully cured, it will still take months to recuperate fully."

This line is listed under the subheading Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance. I believe if this line is informative, it should be moved to Role in disease, but I'm also not sure that it's accurate. I'm new to this wiki thing, I apologize if I overstep myself...> 74.131.51.97 17:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Above line removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.52.2 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove/Move a line:

Also, look for whiteheaded pimple like lumps where you shave or near any sores. this is a sign of staph. see a dermtologist if you think you have it- i am currently suffering from a particuarly violent strand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltingflower (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New relevant research

I don't feel qualified to modify the article, but there is some new research that should be included regarding treatment of the bacteria. Some researchers have show that anti-cholesterol medicine can be used against it.
It is described here: New Strategy Cracks Staph Bacterium's "Golden Armor," Making It Vulnerable To Treatment
The abstract of the paper in Science can be found here: A Cholesterol Biosynthesis Inhibitor Blocks Staphylococcus aureus Virulence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristjan Wager (talk • contribs) 07:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Role of pigment in virulence

Is the citation of this article footnoted #9? If so, it ought to be after the first sentence of text. As it is now, the text only appears to have a citation for the last line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.15.239 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance

I'm currently doing a re-write of what is essentially a total mess (I have not uploaded it yet, though). I will be organising it into sub-sections on antibiotic class. As such, since an awful lot of what is currently in that section is either irrelevant or simply reiterating what has already been said, there will be substantial pruning. Help would be greatly appreciated, especially in the form of content, since I have currently only covered beta-lactams and glycopeptides (the classes I know most about myself). Synthetase (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

20-30 % are "staph carriers"?

I would have thought that S.aureus is the most representative member of the skin flora. I'm deleting it because it's on the very first paragraph and I have a strong feeling that this is inaccurate. Somebody who knows better, please do the needful.

This article sucks very bad. Nothing is mentioned of the role of s.aureus as skin flora and reeks of someone's OCD induced regurgitation. Rabidphage (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the statistic because it is correct, although I went with the 20% figure since that's what's stated in the reference. Another member of Staphylococcus, S. epidermidis, is probably a more representative member of the skin flora. NighthawkJ (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Further information on Role in disease loops back

Under the section Role in disease, it points to Staphylococcal infection as further information. However, the section Coagulase-positive points back to Staphylococcus aureus as further information. It may be possible to merge the two sections together, or to expand on them. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate EM replaced

The infobox had a 50,000x SEM of freeze dried Staph, which was hard to interpret, and consisted of a lot of fracture/crack lines that were artifact, and had nothing to do with the organism. Not much else was shown. Commons has far superior false-color SEMs at 20,000 x and 50,000 x showing the typical clustering, and I think the 20,000 x looks better for this (and best coincides with the Gram stain view through the light microscope). The higher mag shows no more detail on individual cells, and shows less info at the next scale up. So I just went ahead and replaced the bad freeze-dry image. Did I miss something? SBHarris 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)