|WikiProject Microbiology||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Should be more similar to the Gram-negative article
- 2 No practical value
- 3 Classification - OM
- 4 Significance
- 5 Streptococcus misspelled in Gram positive heirarchy graphic
- 6 Exceptions section needs strengthening...
- 7 Multiple inaccuracies
- 8 This is too complicated
- 9 Standardized spelling & punctuation
- 10 Diagram is confusing
- 11 Assessment comment
- 12 Recent addition on probiotics
- 13 Gram positive
Should be more similar to the Gram-negative article
- I agree, if I get any spare time I will attempt some improvements. If anyone feels like a stab it, go ahead. Mushintalk 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No practical value
\This article has no practical value and must be redone...I agree. --Sugarskane 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It has a lot of value actually. No article is ever complete, and this one is just less complete than some others. Mushintalk 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, no article is ever done, but it still needs to be redone -- it's more a series of GP bacteria than an explanation of what it means to be GP. --Sugarskane 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
the Gram Negative page states "Many species of Gram-negative bacteria are pathogenic," -- are gram-positive species less likely to be pathogenic? (I would consider this very useful information for someone who is not familiar with the subject). Rdchambers 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Classification - OM
I removed the following section from the classfication section (at least temporarily) as it seemed somewhat confusing and was unreferenced. I will look into reworking it and adding it back in, if someone else wants to look at it or revert that change, feel free. Schu1321 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- "If the second membrane (of Gram-negative bacteria) is a derived condition, the two may have been basal among the bacteria; otherwise they are probably a relatively recent monophyletic group. They have been considered as possible ancestors for the archaeans and eukaryotes, both because they are unusual in lacking the second membrane and because of various biochemical similarities such as the presence of sterols."
Actinobacteria (including Corynebacterium) are not Firmicutes: In the original bacterial phyla, the Gram-positive organisms made up the phylum Firmicutes, a name now used for the largest group. It includes many well-known genera such as Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, (which are cocci) and Bacillus, Corynebacterium, Nocardia, Clostridium, Actinobacteria, and Listeria (which are rods and can be remembered by the mnemonic obconical). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that there should be a thorough explanation of the effects of GP vs GN bacteria on different antibiotics and the relative effectiveness of these antibiotics on the bacteria (i.e. how some are less effective on GN bacteria because they attack peptidoglycan and not the reproductive parts of the bacteria). At least a link should be posted to the antibiotic article that has this info (Actually, I'm not sure if it does have this info...) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Streptococcus misspelled in Gram positive heirarchy graphic
The graphic titled "Species identification hierarchy in clinical settings" should say Streptococcus not Steptococcus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Exceptions section needs strengthening...
- Not sure what you mean by "added firmness" via phylogeny. Bacterial phyla contains several cladograms that could be copied. I can envision a small cladogram of Firmicutes orders with coloured lines to indicate Gram strain (maybe using the new cladex template), but I am not sure how that would help. The section can be however expanded greatly and there is a review paper which deals with cell structure (Sutcliffe, I. C. (2010). "A phylum level perspective on bacterial cell envelope architecture". Trends in Microbiology. 18 (10): 464–470. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2010.06.005. PMID 20637628.) --Squidonius (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This article contains multiple inaccuracies and out of date emphasis. "Monera" idea is long out of date, unneeded here. An S-layer is not a "membrane." It is misleading to say that most human pathogens are Gram positive, as there are plenty of Gram negative pathogens (Salmonella, V. cholerae etc.). --Joan Slonczewski, microbiologist at Kenyon College — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This is too complicated
This article, well written as it is, is way too complicated for the average Wikipedia reader. I have some medical breakdown and even with that I couldn't follow most of it. I think it needs to be thoroughly re-written so that it reads more like a patient package insert and less like a pharmaceutical textbook.
Standardized spelling & punctuation
Standard form used by the US Federal Government's Center for Disease Control is as follows: 
- Gram should be capitalized and never hyphenated when used as Gram stain; gram negative and gram positive should be lowercase and only hyphenated when used as a unit modifier.
- Gram staining
- gram negative
- gram-positive bacteria
- See similar thread at Talk:Gram-negative bacteria > Standardized spelling & punctuation. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Diagram is confusing
The cartoon for gram positive and negative cell wall structure is confusing. It labels the red coloured bacteria as Gram positive when this article itself says that Gram positive bacteria retain the crystal violet stain and appear purple. The structures are correct but the colouring is counter-intuitive at best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|== What does this have to do with cashews? ==
I was reading this article about acid in cashews, and it said something about the acid pertaining to Gram-Positive bacteria.
Care to elaborate?
_________________________I think the image of the membrane structure image tend to spread confusion about the periplasmic space which is supposed to be a gram negative only feature —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oboros (talk • contribs) 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Last edited at 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 16:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent addition on probiotics
The following was recently added to the Pathogenesis (then renamed "Clinical Considerations"):
which was referenced with this review of trials investigating the effects of probiotics on various inflammatory bowel diseases. I removed the new material because it seems like this is not a conclusion of the cited paper. The only mention of gram-positive bacteria I could find in the paper was a single mention where they note that a single primary study had reported that a group given a Bifidobacterium/Lactobacillus intervention had reduced ulcerative colitis relapse over a control group. They mention a whole bunch of other studies, and conclude
"In conclusion, larger well-designed RCTs are needed to further determine whether probiotics, type of probiotics, and/or synbiotics are of clear benefit for both the induction and/or the maintenance of remission in UC."
That said, I'm certainly not opposed to having information about gram-positives as probiotics here. If someone has time to dig up some good sources, I'd be happy to help put together a section on it. Anyway, just wanted to explain the removal of material so the adder didn't think it was a knee-jerk reaction. Ajpolino (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Please don't make assertion that lower case gram is the conventional way of writing. It is not. Just because some organization recommends it does not make it so. A quick check on Pubmed shows that the lowercase form is the less common one, probably only around a quarter of the first 100 papers I checked - . It is normal to use the more common form in Wikipedia (therefore uppercase Gram-positive), for example as recommended in WP:COMMONNAME. Hzh (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly see it both ways in papers, so there doesn't seem to be some global consensus on capitalization of "gram-positive/negative". It'd be nice if we could find a ref (or some refs) that give clear, authoritative advice on which is used (or, more likely, mention that both are used). Our current strategy of using as "refs" the definitions from Merriam Webster, Dorland's, OED, et al. doesn't really backup the claims that lowercase is recommended but uppercase is very common. The only sources I've seen which backup a statement on which might be "recommended" is the CDC cite which recommends lowercase and hyphenated, and this old APS style manual which recommends lowercase and hyphenated. Based on those, I've been gently reverting when people edit bacteria articles just to capitalize gram-positive/negative, however since it's so common either way I haven't been changing capitalization in articles where the capitalized form is already there. I'd appreciate any insight from others. Maybe we could find a source that discusses the split and mentions that both are common? That'd probably be the best thing to cite here... Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion has come up several times on several pages. Pinging those involved in prior discussion here. Please ping others who have been involved in other iterations of this. Hopefully we can settle this to everyone's satisfaction and have some kind of reasonable consensus going forward. @Wikiuser100, Quercus solaris, and Jytdog:Ajpolino (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- There are two separate issues here, one is that the article made a false claim it is conventionally written in lowercase (conventionally-written means commonly written, a look at scientific literature shows that the opposite is true - more papers use uppercase Gram). People should take care not to spread false information. The other issue is whether we should make it consistent, recommending a style that goes against common usage. I think unless there is an overwhelming case for doing so, it should be left as how people prefer it, rather than trying to enforce something most people don't do. The note on orthography is good enough to show that either way is done. I find the explanation for the use of lowercase dubious in any case - there is a difference between something that has become a single word like "parkinsonian" (even then I can find counter examples where uppercase are normally used, like "Newtonian") and one that some people would even still write as two separate words unhyphenated (even if the hyphenated form is more common). Hzh (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would just add a note that according to the Oxford style guide here, eponym derivatives in medical texts like "parkinsonian" may be used in lowercase, therefore the recommendation of CDC may have to do with it being a health and medical organization rather than a usage style that may be applied generally. In many other areas in science, the uppercase is more generally used (e.g. Newtonian mechanics, Lorenztian function, Gaussian distribution, Darwinian selection, etc.). Hzh (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Neither style is wrong for these terms (gram-positive, gram-negative). At the end of the day I am fine with whichever style Wikipedia chooses for its own content per its own style guide (WP:MEDMOS). The only thing I do care about is that when people ask the question "which one is 'correct'?" Wikipedia explains to them that "both are OK, and the choice just depends on whose style guide is governing." The section "Orthographic note" basically already accomplishes this with the version that exists as I write this. I could probably write an even more neutral and explanatory version (same point, better explanation), which I might if I have time. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I like the consolidated note. This reflects reality much better than the previous iteration did. Not totally clear on if the preprint vs postprint bit is necessary, but it's definitely an improvement. Ajpolino (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)