Talk:Mycoplasmataceae

Should this be merged with the Mycoplasma article? Mycoplama looks to be a stub, although Mycoplasma is described as a genus, while Mycoplasmataceae is a family, but nothing I see as to what makes Mycoplama more specific taxonomically. url pathmicro.med.sc.edu/2008-bacppt/Mycoplasma08.ppt suggests that there is a difference. Which direction the merge goes in a question. I'd think the term 'mycoplama' might be more 'well-known' (basically any site that talks about alt-health hypotheses of mycoplama causing.. all sorts of things.. but I've never even seen the name 'mycoplasmataceae' before today..)

Expert attention needed

In this edit, Oflandandsea has altered the text to claim (with citations) that Ureaplasma parvum is a pathogen, where the prior text claimed (also with citations) that U. parvum is a commensal within the human biome. Both statements cannot be true; an expert opinion is needed to assess the sources and determine which position is correct. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The following comment was made at my user talk page. @Oflandandsea: I am copying it here to promote a a centralized discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I have updated the article to reflect the current knowledge in this field. Both this page and the page for Ureaplasma parvum cited sources that were no newer than 2012 - 2014. Given the pace of research on this subject, these sources are outdated and not representative of what has been discovered in the past 5-10 years.

I do understand how it is confusing that some sources say that it is a pathogen, while others do not. All recent sources published since the papers that were cited in the article before I edited it have labeled it as a pathogen. That's how science works. There was a body of evidence to support it being commensal, but now there is an even greater body of evidence associated with recent research and newer diagnostic techniques that points to its role as a pathogen in many human diseases. Whether or not to mention the past misconceptions about Ureaplasma in the article is debatable and it may be appropriate to call it a pathogen for clarity's sake.

The source I cited to support it being labeled a pathogen is a medical textbook, specifically Molecular Medical Microbiology. Per the description of this book: "Molecular Medical Microbiology was the first book to synthesise the many new developments in both molecular and clinical research in a single comprehensive resource. The molecular age has brought about dramatic changes in medical microbiology, and great leaps in our understanding of the mechanisms of infectious disease..." Precisely my point about the leaps and bounds that have been made since the sources cited by the previous version of the page Mycoplasmataceae.

This is akin to a review; thus a very high level of evidence supporting this claim. I am not experienced in editing wikipedia articles, this is my first one, but the lack of consensus with recent research struck me as too egregious an error to let stand. I don't know what constitutes an "expert" opinion, but if needed I can provide documentation of my relevant degrees and qualifications that make me qualified to make this assessment.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oflandandsea (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oflandandsea, I'm no expert. But as a user and a reader, I think that this information

> There was a body of evidence to support it being commensal, but now there is an even greater body of evidence associated with recent research and newer diagnostic techniques that points to its role as a pathogen

should be kept in the article, as a history of research Grv87 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)