From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old discussions[edit]

There is a document entitled 'Chapter 1 - Microbiology' at in Microsoft .doc format that appears to be (at least in part) a work of the U.S. Indian Health Service.

See for more details -- it appears to be a draft.

However, its copyright status is unclear. If it is a work of the U.S. Federal Government or one of its agencies, then it is in the public domain, and we should be able to use it. -- Anon.

Old discussions, part 2[edit]

Is this phrase from the opening paragraph supposed to say "much is NOT known" ? "Although much is now known in the field of microbiology, advances are being made regularly." the "now" and the second clause conflicts with the "although". I do not know anything about microbiology, however, so I present it to you as a possible typo. -jdw

I propose that this page be consolidated with Microorganism. Any opinions? -adam

I don't think that is such a good idea. There is much to be written about the field of microbiology (esp. in terms of history) that isn't at all appropriate for an article about microbes. --mav
So make this a page about Microbiology as a social undertaking, while microbe deals with the subject matter of Microbiology? Sounds good.

A Bulgarian innovation:human blood has normal microbial flora.[edit]

Dear Sir, November 10, 2003

Everybody can see on color photographs the microorganisms living in the blood of Bulgarian professors of medicine as normal microbial flora[ ],but Bulgaria is one of the poorest country of Europe and this is the reason to ask you what must I do in order to get some information about the taxonomy of this unknown till present microorganisms.? I'm ready to any form of cooperation with anybody who use some kind of DNA investigations.

Sincerely E. Kalfin M. D., Ph. D.

Anon "contribution"[edit]

This text was added by User: but in doing so deleted all the external links. I have moved the text here and reverted. Onco p53 04:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are three classes of microbes, which include prions and viruses, the prokaryotic forms and the eukaryotic forms. Prions and viruses are acellular, meaning that they do not posess the tradition cell structure. They are in fact, not true organisms. Prions are little string of proteins, while a virus is a protein coated string of RNA or DNA. The prokaryotic forms of microbes, which are also the biggest and most important group in microbiology, are bacteria. They are mostly unicellular. Finally, the eukaryotic forms of microbes include algae, fungi and protozoans. They are the most complex of the three classes.

Considering large addition[edit]

I'd like to contribute significantly to this page to raise the quality on what I feel is a very important subject. I'm going to be working on a more detailed history paragraph as well as a better overall description of the field. I may add a picture as well, maybe a microscope or something along those lines. I see the difficulty being to get a good article here that doesn't cross-over with all the other sub-fields of biology. I see microbiology as second only to the larger discipline of biology as the mother of Molecular biology, Biochemistry, Cell biology, etc. Any comments? J Shultz 17:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Considering large addition[edit]

I'm a student studying microbiology, and completely agree this is an area of science frquently overlooked. It would be nice to have some information on how microbes have contributed to genome projects. The very first was done a virus and the first microbe (Haemophilus influenzae) was completed 1995 almost 10 years ahead of the human genome project.

Bacteriology - Microbiology[edit]

I agree that bacteriology is an important part of microbiology but the latter includes yeasts, protists and virii which are clearly not bacteria. I would vote to keep it separated. Spitshine 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Chlamydia-like Microorganisms Live in Donor's Blood as Normal Flora[edit]

Chlamydia-like Microorganisms can be seen on 2 color photographs and on 10 electron microsop photographs in donor's blood in an article published in English in 2005.Every microbiologist can isolate this microorganisms from his/her blood and see them in his/her laboratory in order to study them moore carefuly and inform patients about the discovery of normal flora in human blood. E. Kalfin M.D.,Ph.d.

I´ve found a source on the subject, in case anyone is interested, and wants to see if there´s something useful for the WP article. I´ve not read it yet. Chlamydia-like Microorganisms Live in Donor's Blood as Normal Flora --Extremophile 14:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Links removed from main page[edit] - looks like link spam

What is Link spam? If you think in that way, then, ninty percent links in wiki are link spam. This site I posted is very useful Microbiology News Site. If you think a News site focused on particular subject is link spam, then please delete the link. I am not associated with this site, anyway.

Earlier ideas on microbiology?[edit]

There were nothing like the classic greeks or someone else thinking way further in time, having ideas about microbiology? From the germ theory of disease article I´ve found this:

One of the earliest references to this theory appears in On Agriculture by Marcus Terentius Varro (published in 36 BCE) wherein there is a warning about locating a homestead in the proximity of swamps which reads "...and because there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases." (Varro On Agriculture 1,xii Loeb)
Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seedlike entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances.

Would not these things be consdiered something like "pre-microbiology"? --Extremophile 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that could fit into this article in the history section. Something like "the existence of microorganisms was first hypothesised <your reference to Marcus Terentius Varro>. However, the first bacteria were not visualised until much later..." Mushintalk 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Antonie Lee was the fist to find and use the microscope in the history of microbilogy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Is there a wikiproject pertaining to Microbiology? -- Lost 07:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC) If there is wikiproject i want to know about it so it can be a good talk to the world microbiologists student in the world thanks.


spirulina could use some help with some of the basic factual stuff, it looks like its been taken over by a bunch of health food nuts. Don't get me wrong, spirulina might cure AIDS, but it seems to me it still needs some citations. --Niro5 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


A bit off-topic but I want to cast a wide net: Does anyone happen to know any embryologists? I think Embryology really needs a lot of expert attention. would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [1]Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alkaline reversion[edit]

define alkaline reversion. how can it be avoided —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2006

See also: Bacteria[edit]

A link to Bacteria has been added and removed from the see also. At this point Archaea is still there, so Bacteria should be too, (I put it back for now) but perhaps it's redundant to have those two AND prokaryote. I'm sure whoever removed it had a reason. What was it? Jmeppley 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

recent changes[edit]

I have to decided to remove this early hypothesizing that such things as microrganisms existed. First of all neither of these early claims resemble in any way that microorganisms existed. Worlds like foul earthly bodies and contagious entities does not in any way mean someone was talking about microbes. I mean were these foul contagious entities made of what? solids, liquids, a combination. Basically by saying these early people were speculating on the existence of microbes is fallacious since one is just amplying a modern interpretation to ancient words. Essentialy one is just assuming, ohh contagious entities, well they must be talking about microbes, but thats just retrospect since we now know such things exist. This early section is best kept in the germ theory page. Lastly, associating microbes with disease is foolish since its not true, not all microbes cause disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bergis Manual[edit]

At the bottom of the page there is a line saying that one can look in 'bergis manual' for more information on bacteria, I believe the correct spelling is 'Bergey's Manual'. Can anyone verify if this is correct? Jsmith86 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that really makes the page look better. Jsmith86 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


What about the Archaea? This article does a good job at describing the types of microorganisms that exist, however, the Archaea have been completely left out. Although they are unicellular prokaryotes like Bacteria they are NOT Bacteria. They are in fact a distinct domain of life (the other two being Bacteria and Eukarya). Archaea are more closely related to Eukarya than bacteria (though they seem to have been grouped with the latter). They definitely need to be a part of this article. (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Microbiology Honours Student

You know, you could always add it yourself... (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest this article isn't at all good. I've added them to the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Link problems[edit]

The link at is "under maintenance" How should I have dealt with this other than this notice? --Sultec (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

someone mentioned to be careful about sources[edit]

see [2], ----Erkan Yilmaz 08:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history section.[edit]

The is a problem in this section, in the part that tells the speculations of Avicenna and Ibn Khatima.The problem is that the sources provided are ureliable and partisan, and therefore, biased. The first one is:Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D. (2002). "Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times", Journal of the Islamic Medical Association 2, p. 2–9. The articles ends like this: "Conclusion: 1,000 years ago Islamic medicine was the most advanced in the world at that time. Even after ten centuries, the achievements of Islamic medicine look amazingly modern. 1,000 years ago the Muslims were the great torchbearers of international scientific research. Every student and professional from each country outside the Islamic Empire, aspired, yearned, dreamed to go to the Islamic universities to learn, to work, to live and to lead a comfortable life in an affluent and civilized society. Today, in this twentieth century, the United States of America has achieved such a position. The pendulum can swing back. Fortunately, Allah has given a bounty to many Islamic countries – an income over 100 billion dollars per year. Hence Islamic countries have the opportunity and resources to make Islamic science and medicine number one in the world, once again." (p. 9)

I think everyone will agree with me that this source is unreliable.

The next source is: David W. Tschanz, MSPH, PhD (August 2003). "Arab Roots of European Medicine", Heart Views 4 (2)

This article claims the origin of the Quarantine is found in the work of Avicenna ,when we all know that Quarantine originated in Venice during the Black Death. Even if Avicenna advocated the isolation from the sick peple to avoid contagion, i doubt it was for fory days,like in Venice.Furthermore, as the Quarantine article says, 2500 years before Avicenna there was a practice of separating sick people.I took the Bible and voila!! it was there.So this is a practice with a long,long,long history.

But wait,there´s more: David W. Tschanz is a scholar who lives in Saudi Arabia and works for the state owned oil company Saudi Aramco.Can we trust a shcolar who works for a saudi arabian company, and livesin Saudi Arabia, in a matter like ARAB contributions to Europe??.Besides, just reading the article makes every person with a bit of critical thinking aware of the bias.

Therefore, the infromation regadring Avicenna and Ibn Kahtima will be removed.Unless better sources are provided, of course.--Knight1993 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for the topic about the List of microbiological topics.....[edit]

-- (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

-- (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time[edit]

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting {{In Our Time|Microbiology|b007753d}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Nice advertisement[edit]

It's kinda dissapointing as a reader to find that something like this disasterpiece has been sitting in the introduction of an article of top-importance for almost two weeks:

"For microbiological research, microscope was the major tool, and still is a very important to study the biology of microorganisms. Pure cultures and bacterial growth is traditionally , Petri dish . More Innovative approaches for qualitative or quantitative analysis, for examples : Vial Lab was named by Germany Scientist in 2011. It can be used without pre-treatment."

Especially since I apparently can't edit it out myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Information on staining methods[edit]

I earlier deleted much information on staining that in the article's opening was overwhelming, but might be relevant if edited and better sorted in the article otherwise [diff]. In that event, however, more information on culture and fixation—before staining, or, in electron microscopy, without staining—will be useful as well, since the outcome at each step, especially the final step of visualization, is contingent on the prior steps. (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Microorganisms By jasonr08[edit]

Microbiology (from Greek μῑκρος, mīkros, "small"; βίος, bios, "life"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of microscopic organisms, either unicellular (single cell), multicellular (cell colony), or acellular (lacking cells).[1] Microbiology encompasses numerous sub-disciplines including virology, mycology, parasitology, and bacteriology. Eukaryotic microorganisms possess membrane-bound cell organelles and include fungi and protists, whereas prokaryotic organisms—which all are microorganisms—are conventionally classified as lacking membrane-bound organelles and include eubacteria and archaebacteria. Microbiologists traditionally relied on culture, staining, and microscopy. However, less than 1% of the microorganisms present in common environments can be cultured in isolation using current means.[2] Microbiologists often rely on extraction or detection of nucleic acid, either DNA or RNA sequences. Viruses have been variably classified as organisms,[3] as they have been considered either as very simple microorganisms or very complex molecules. Prions, never considered microorganisms, have been investigated by virologists, however, as the clinical effects traced to them were originally presumed due to chronic viral infections, and virologists took search—discovering "infectious proteins". As an application of microbiology, medical microbiology is often introduced with medical principles of immunology as microbiology and immunology. Otherwise, microbiology, virology, and immunology as basic sciences have greatly exceeded the medical variants, applied sciences.[4][5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonr08 (talkcontribs) 15:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microbiology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

not a good laboratory picture[edit]

I don't this this is a good representative laboratory pic

LUA, Faculty of Food Technology Food microbiology laboratory.jpg

--ArazZeynili (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

MicrobeWiki at Kenyon College as external link?[edit]

this is a good external link resource: MicroWiki. Has a bunch of "curated pages" which are reviewed by microbiologists. II | (t - c) 21:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Microbe World from the American Society for Microbiology seems pretty good also. II | (t - c) 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not definitely the first[edit]

@Zingvin: While it is certainly agreed that Leeuwenhoek was a pioneer, he is not the only early microbiologist, nor definitely the first, as the article already indicates, so we should not imply he was. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Heading structure for History[edit]

The History section currently has one level of subsections to organise its contents. This seems sufficient for the content, and it's generally best to avoid deeper nesting in tables of contents in any case. If the titles are not liked then we can freely discuss those, but 'Ancient times' and 'Medieval' are de facto standards across many articles, so perhaps 'Early Modern' is the logical (and quite common) section heading for that period of history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Branches added again[edit]

I added the branches again (someone else already did this). I think removing them was not a good idea. They might even deserve an own page. It is a very good overview and as far as I know the most complete I have seen on wikipedia. It contains all the needed links to other pages on wiki. No idea why this was deleted in the first place.

The article needs some rewriting in general. Garnhami (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The "it's useful" argument is not suitable for Wikipedia: recall that it is not a directory. The article indeed needs "some rewriting": some reliable sources to permit verification might be rather a good start. As for putting the list, when suitably cited, on a separate page, that would make a lot more sense than having an uncited list interfering with the flow of text of this article. I think your addition of uncited, undiscussed, unexplained, uncommented lists inappropriate, and suggest we delete them from here immediately. Rather than faff around, I've created a list article for you, leaving the summary paragraph here. No doubt both the summary and the separate list can be improved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with uncited, undiscussed, unexplained, uncommented list. I see it like this: 1) the list is cited (ok, granted 2 references, and they are mentioned before the lists starts, I do not see how else I could site it) 2) uncommented? The comments or the explanations of the list on the specific wikipages itself, if you have to comment it on this page itself,the page would be way too long 3) unexplained?The list itself is indeed not really explained, but the explanation is on those specific pages. I think the list (or the new page) can be a nice addition to wikipedia. So thank you for making that page. About your comment on: Wikipedia is not a directory , I actually checked it and could not find anything bad here. a)Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics => it is not loosely associated b) Genealogical entries => not the case here c) The White or Yellow Pages. => no d) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. => also not the case e) Sales catalogues => not the case either f)Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations => not the problem here g)Simple listings without context information => I can see you have a point here, but some do have some explanation, and I'll try to improve it a bit more.

Garnhami (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)