Talk:Candida albicans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Fungi (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Recents edits emphasizing risk[edit]

The recent edits by 24.64.223.203 contain some strong, but unsourced claims. Someone who knows the subject might want to check this. Rl 08:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know about it per se, but it sounds like the alternative medicine claptrap used to sell Candida treaments to people. As far as references, from what I've seen they're almost all from books published by treatment purveyors, with no scholarly journal articles. I'll edit the 2nd paragraph to tone down POV and present it as the opinion of alternative medicine proponents. --KSevcik 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like rubbish to me. Anyone using allopathy to describe mainstream medicine is asking for trouble. Also had at look at his/her talk page. Not exactly exemplary!!! If you could incorporate this somehow objectively then that would be excellent! -- postglock 05:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Phenotypic switching[edit]

I'm a little confused as to whether Phenotypic switching "is" dimorphism or if it is similar to it. I am going to remove the line declaring that it IS dimorphism for now since the next paragraph starts with an apparent contradiction to this statement. If someone can give me any input in favor against this edit, i would appreciate it Dinosaurdarrell 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, but I found this article regarding Undycylenic acid and the 'switch' between the yeast form of C. Albicans and the 'hyphae' form: acid inhibits morphogenesis of Candida albicans.

It has been taken care off. It should be more clear now. Garnhami (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sexual fungus?[edit]

hey! i am sorry, but c. albicans is not really a sexual fungus! it is rathter classified as an asexual fungus, as no meiosis has been described for this yeast. C. albicans has only a parasexual cycle, which has only been observed in vitro.i am also agree with you that c.albicans will show only parasexual cycl only.....


But i dont know how to update the page! Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.13.144.74 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Just go back to the article and click on edit this page, make the change, explain what you did in the edit summary line, and click Save page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyrospirit (talkcontribs) 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Are antibiotics like penicillin and streptomycin going to be effective against candida albicans? why or why not? Discuss where and what structure the antibiotics act on.

  My understanding is that antibiotics are only effective against bacteria, not fungi.  In fact, I am given to understand that candida infections can be triggered or aggravated by the use of antibiotics, because the antibiotics can kill off bacteria that are important for keeping the candida in check.  —Bob Blaylock (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also what is its gram reaction? What about it's structure prevents its staining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.154.189 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  My understanding regarding this is that Gram staining is only really applicable to bacteria; it is used to divide most bacteria into two groups—Gram-positive and Gram-negative.  Candida holds on quite well to the crystal violet, and so stains deep purple, when Gram-stained, but this really doesn't mean anything.  —Bob Blaylock (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement clarification[edit]

Greatly appreciated would be the consideration by one of the article's contributors for the purpose of clarifying the statement

One of the classically studied strains that undergoes phenotypic switching is WO-1...

Is it meant

Of the classically studied strains, one that undergoes phenotypic switching is WO-1...?

Or is it meant

Of the classically studied strains that undergo phenotypic switching, one is WO-1...? (There are, in fact, other strains that undergo phenotypic switching. Yet, are they considered by the article's contributors to be classically studied?)

In the statement's rewording into the two different forms, one can recognize the distinction in meanings. It can be presumed that the first rewording represents the intended meaning of the statement; however, if what is meant is represented by the second statement, then the statement should be

One of the classically studied strains that undergo phenotypic switching is WO-1...

Nonetheless, may we rephrase the statement to one of the reworded examples in order to eliminate any confusion and explicitly state the intended meaning?

Thank you. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosis as disease?[edit]

Since this is a disease, would it not be appropriate to have a section regarding diagnosis and symptoms and such? I am trying to differentiate between Tinea Cruris and Candida Albicans. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:21FF:1CF0:0:0:0:36 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"50-90%"[edit]

"C. albicans, together with C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata, is responsible for 50–90% of all cases of candidiasis in humans."

The singular verb 'is' implies that C. Albicans is the only subject of the sentence, and so:

"C. albicans is responsible for 50–90% of all cases of candidiasis in humans."

I don't think that's what's actually meant (although I could be wrong) and I would suggest that it be rephrased to:

"C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata, are together responsible for 50–90% of all cases of candidiasis in humans."

I'm going to make this change, but wanted to leave some additional explanation. 38.88.11.34 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candida albicans. 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.

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) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)