Talk:Bacteria
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bacteria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|||
| Article policies
|
||
| Archives: Index, 1, 2 | |||
| Bacteria has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as FA-Class. |
| This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| Bacteria is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 20, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A brief summary of this article is exhibited on the following portals... | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
| Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core | (Rated FA-class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Contents
Number of Species suggestion[edit]
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.
Number of Species[edit]
Total number of bacterial species (estimated): 5–10[1], or even 1,000 million[2] (identified and unidentified) bacteria worldwide.
Of the 6,000 to 170,000 identified prokaryotic species there are:
- 16,000 prokaryotic species "seen by science", based on the number of different 98% unique 16S_ribosomal_RNA sequences in databases as of 2004[2]. This analysis was based on a total of 56,215 16S rRNA gene sequences, the total number of 16S rRNA gene sequences in 2010 was 1,483,016, almost 30 times as many[3].
- 6,728 bacteria Type_strains that are fully described, currently stored in culture collections, and with a sequenced 16S_ribosomal_RNA gene (as of 2008)[4].
- 165,676 bacteria species with some genetic sequence known (of which 10,045 were in Microbiological_culture)), as of 2011[5]
- 4,794 Archaea species with some genetic sequence known (of which 395 were in Microbiological_culture)), as of 2011[5]
Rationale[edit]
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 [4] 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 [2] 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 [2]. 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. [5]
References[edit]
- ^ Sogin ML, Morrison HG, Huber JA; et al. (2006). "Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored "rare biosphere"". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103 (32): 12115–20. doi:10.1073/pnas.0605127103. PMC 1524930. PMID 16880384. Unknown parameter
|month=ignored (help)Cheung L (Monday, 31 July 200). "Thousands of microbes in one gulp". BBC. Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c d Schloss, P. D.; Handelsman, J (2004). "Status of the microbial census". Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR. 68 (4): 686–91. doi:10.1128/MMBR.68.4.686-691.2004. PMC 539005. PMID 15590780.
- ^ Cole, J. R.; Wang, Q.; Cardenas, E.; Fish, J.; Chai, B.; Farris, R. J.; Kulam-Syed-Mohideen, A. S.; McGarrell, D. M.; Marsh, T.; Garrity, G. M.; Tiedje, J. M. (2009). "The Ribosomal Database Project: Improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis". Nucleic Acids Research. 37 (Database issue): D141–D145. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn879. PMC 2686447. PMID 19004872.
- ^ a b Yarza, P.; Richter, M.; Peplies, J. R.; Euzeby, J.; Amann, R.; Schleifer, K. H.; Ludwig, W.; Glöckner, F. O.; Rosselló-Móra, R. (2008). "The All-Species Living Tree project: A 16S rRNA-based phylogenetic tree of all sequenced type strains". Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 31 (4): 241–250. doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2008.07.001. PMID 18692976.
- ^ a b c "NCBI taxonomy tool". NCBI, NIH. Retrieved 2011-01-08.
Needs a definition[edit]
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)
External links modified[edit]
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511132823/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Bacteria?topic=49480 to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Bacteria?topic=49480
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Uncited material[edit]
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)
- Looking through the article, I can only agree. I think it needs either tagging for refimprove or review. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170713150622/http://www.microbeworld.org/images/stories/history_pdfs/f3.pdf to http://www.microbeworld.org/images/stories/history_pdfs/f3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Article cleanup[edit]
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:
- I removed a sentence on macrofossils and a sentence on secondary endosymbioses (both of which seemed like an aside on paragraphs about the origins of bacteria
- Uncommented the bit about the prokaryotic ancestor being a hyperthermophile (I know the refs are old, I'll look for something more recent)
- Removed the paragraph about the recent putative fossilized microorganisms. I think it's a great addition for the pages on life and its evolution, but for a page on bacterial origins, I think the first sentence about how microbial life emerged ~4 billion years ago is sufficient. The latest estimates on that timing probably aren't necessary for a bacteria article. If others disagree, I'm happy to chat about it and come up with some compromise (maybe we could incorporate that info into the section a bit more smoothly).
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)
- Made a few changes to the morphology section. Removed some primary refs and updated some refs. I also took out the biofilms picture which didn't appear very informative and brought back the scale image that had been removed last year due to factual inaccuracies (I think its still informative for our purposes). If someone has time and could update the refs in the biofilms section, that would be a huge help. I think about a million biofilm reviews have come out since the ones cited here. Lastly, I moved the myxococcus multicellularity example up before the biofilm paragraph where I thought it might fit better. Any issues/concerns, happy to discuss here.Ajpolino (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Bacteriophages[edit]
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)
I am proposing a new section called " Types of bacteria "[edit]
Aerobic bacteria Anaerobic bacteria commensal bacteria pathogenic bacteria
Major Meena kumari (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)MMK
- In the current article, aerobic and anaerobic bacteria are covered in the "Metabolism" section, while commensal vs. pathogenic are covered in the "Interactions with other organisms" section. Is there any particular information you'd like added to those sections? Ajpolino (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
First sentence reads "Bacteria is... They..."[edit]
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)
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Science
- Wikipedia FA-Class vital articles in Science
- Wikipedia FA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Microbiology articles
- Top-importance Microbiology articles
- WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles
- WikiProject Microbiology articles
- FA-Class MCB articles
- Top-importance MCB articles
- FA-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles
- FA-Class taxonomic articles
- Top-importance taxonomic articles
- FA-Class Biology articles
- Top-importance Biology articles
- WikiProject Biology articles
- FA-Class history of science articles
- Top-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- Cambrian portal Natural world articles
- Cambrian portal FA-class articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- FA-Class Version 1.0 articles
- Top-importance Version 1.0 articles
- Natural sciences Version 1.0 articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection
- FA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles
- FA-Class core topic articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 core topic articles
- Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles