Talk:Escherichia coli/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major clean up

Anyone who has read this article recently is aware that it had become quite disheveled. It appears that new information was progressively added without consideration of readability or context. Therefore, I've conducted a major revision. Colloquial and dubious information was deleted outright. Information that was well-written, but did not pertain specifically to E. coli, was moved to more appropriate entries. Finally, the article was re-structured to improve the logical flow of sections and sub-sections. Downgrading WP:MICRO rating to "Start" because some sections (e.g. biotechnology) are lacking critical information. I recommend that the WP:MCB rating also be downgraded. More work will be needed to get it back up to "B class". Kindest regards, AlphaEta 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

how we get it?

babies dont born with this bacteria, so how our coli got bacteria? All mothers can't be dirty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.65.219 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

There seems to have been no discussion on moving the article to E. coli; in fact, the section above ("Most common name?") suggests a consensus to keep it at Escherichia coli. I have therefore moved the article back to the full name. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When I go to E. coli, I'm not automatically redirected to Escherichia coli.--Mumia-w-18 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's odd. Have you tried WP:CACHE? I've purged the page, that should do it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, now I'm redirected.--Mumia-w-18 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree that the page should be named Escherichia coli. As a microbiologist, the title E. coli makes me cringe. AlphaEta 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Full name = better. I think, however, the disambiguation to Entamoeba coli should return as it is a plausible search for "E. coli"... — Scientizzle 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be E.COLI THANKS }:D> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.144.142 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

English Please!

The first few paragraphs are incomprehensible to the average reader. I personally couldn't understand about 80-90% of the words per sentence... could somebody create a common english version below all the science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.139.32 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular info you'd like to see in the introductory paragraphs? Did you try clicking through the wikilinks for technical terms you didn't understand? If so, which terms do you think need more clarification? The article is going through some major revision right now, so please let us know what, specifically, you'd like to see included, clarified, simplified, etc.... Kindest regards, AlphaEta 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor issue with link styles.

  • In the second paragraph of the article it has a link to vitamin K2 (menaquinone). Wouldn't it be better to leave menaquinone out of the link like so: vitamin K2(menaquinone). Or is it even necessary to add? Isn't Vitamin K2 the more commonly used name?
  • The links to the different strains of E.coli are inconsistent. Some simply appear as O157:H7, while others are shown as E. coli O157:H7 or

Escherichia coli O157:H7. I rather like E. coli O157:H7 myself since it is the clearest and yet not as long as the full name.

Anyway, these are only minor things, but any suggestions would be helpful. --Deepraine (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes have been made. Thanks, AlphaEta 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that O157:H7 would in general be the best style (this is an article about Escherichia coli, after all, so context generally prevents ambiguity). The one place I noticed where I'd say something like E. coli O157:H7 would be the sentence "It is believed that this process led to the spread of shiga toxin from Shigella to E. coli O157:H7." where there are two species being discussed in that sentence. Kingdon (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. AlphaEta 05:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

To expand the model organism section, details of the genetics of E. Coli should really be included, and details of the genome sequencing project as well. The ways in which genes are knocked out for study can also be included. Million_Moments (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I couldnt find the size of the genome in the article. 85.127.250.77 (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here looking for that too. It's pretty disappointing to have such a glaring omission given the organism's importance to molecular biology. For the record, it seems to be between 4.6 and 5.4 Mb, according to this page. Qwerty0 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wild-type E. coli has no growth factor requirements; it can synthesize all the components of its cell from glucose."

No, it can't. Where is its nitrogen supply? Also trace elements, etc, but I don't think that this is so important. --Wee Jimmy (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence, it was incorrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do help.

I would like to see better explanation, definition, disambiguation, direction, assistance,....

Please. Thank You, [[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also:

  • peritrichous has a link to Flagellum, but no where on that page is found "peritrichous". I think if it links, it should link to the word or at least be somewhere on the page to see it in context. Kristinwt (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Reply The first pargraph of the section linked to explains the different arrangments of flagella. The last sentence explains peritrichous. I wonder if some re-wording at Flagellum#Flagella arrangment schemes might be needed, but this is not an area I know much about. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Image:E coli metabolic network.png

Image:E coli metabolic network.png consists only of a low resolution map of metabolic processes, that is completely incomprehensible to anybody who is not an expert. All components are only referred to by abbreviation and it contains different kinds of arrows, which are not explained in a legend. --134.93.142.245 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a high-res version available from the same source. But that still wouldn't solve the problem that it takes an effort to figure out what it all is in the figure, and requires you to know the pathways to some degree already. Narayanese (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold text st== Size ==

What is the size of a E.coli? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 08:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A few micrometres long. Look at the pctures, they have scales. Narayanese (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

levels of e.coli in urine

I took my daughter back to the doctor today and he informed me she had levels of e.coli in her urine and has requested a second sample as the first did not show any puss cells. can someone explain this to me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.153.248 (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

worth mention?

Is it worth mentioning about the Jack in the box restaurant outbreak since it practically made e. coli a household phrase?

http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_outbreaks/view/jack-in-the-box-e-coli-outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.16.58 (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

somebody had changed all instances of "coli" to "koli" (which was changed back to normal), but there still are major errors left, such as "cum" when it should be "acid," and "gram-postive" instead of "gram-negative." Please someone banhammer the vandals and try not to keep vandalism like this go so long undetected. Thanks. 96.248.8.211 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You should use the undo button next to the last edit in he history tag next time, so you don't have to undo vandalism manually. The vandal used a university account, so this one can't be banned. Narayanese (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

species name entries

I'm curious as to why Wikipedia doesn't seem to note the species names correctly. In entries, the species names always have the first letter of the genus also listed. For example, Escherichia coli lists the species as E. coli, but shouldn't the species just be coli. The E. stands for the genus. I understand that in scientific discussions one would use E. coli to clarify the organism, but in that case you are using binomial nomenclature and thus the genus and species are used. My point is that the species should not contain the first letter of the genus. Stabwest lance (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)stabwest_lance

The scientific convention is that the species name is a binomial, hence E. coli is correct. The epithet coli is never used by itself to refer to the species. --Una Smith (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Laboratory diagnosis

Hi. Some content on Sorbitol-MacConkey agar probably belongs in this article, rather than there. See also Talk:Sorbitol-MacConkey agar. And perhaps there should be an article devoted to the topic of lactose fermenting vs non lactose fermenting bacteria. --Una Smith (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Virotype??

e. coli can hardly have different virotypes! The table that differs ETEC/EPEC ect. talks about virotypes.

Refers to the virulence characteristics. Virulence is a concept that covers a lot of ground and depends somewhat on the context you're discussing it in; and virulence isn't fixed. But in the same sense that a leopard doesn't change its spots, its useful to talk about the "type" of virulence you're dealing with, esp comparing one strain with another of the same organism, like we're doing here with pathogenic E coli. They're all bad but some are badder than others. Maybe when they signal to each other it's something like "Hey baby what's your virotype?" Richard8081 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Shape of Bacteria

My recent good-faith edit to this article, being an addition of the words "rod-shaped" to the opening line, was recently reverted by Narayanese. The reason that user gave for the revert was that "[the bacteria] are not always rod-shaped, depends on the environment".

I'm fine with that reason if it's correct, but if you look further down in the article under "Laboratory Diagnosis", you will see the words "In stool samples microscopy will show Gram negative rods, with no particular cell arrangement". In my opinion this sentence should also be changed, if my original edit is not to be accepted. Otherwise, I believe that the opening line should read : "Escherichia coli (commonly E. coli; pronounced /ˌɛʃɪˈrɪkiə ˈkoʊlaɪ/, /iː ~/, and named for its discoverer), is a Gram negative, rod-shaped bacterium...".

Please provide your opinion on this issue. -- Russthomas1515 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong. Still, I don't think shape has a place in the introduction, nor is its discoverer something that should be stated in the first sentence imo, just not important compared to ecology and disease. Narayanese (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The shape of a bacterium is defining and therefore it is essential that this information appears in the introduction. The species was not named for its discoverer. The genus, however, was and thus this information belongs on the Escherichia article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence notes the E. coli is named after its discoverer, but doesn't name the discoverer. It is linked, so you can go to the link or float your mouse over it to find out, but it seems odd. 205.254.147.8 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Transmission and reception

how is the virulent form contracted, or is it a mutation? what are the protocols for minimal transmission and infection?

there are lots of virulent forms of E coli, from E coli o157:H7 on down; from killers to ... well, I don't want to minimize any of them, they can all get out of hand when you consider bacterial sepsis, which can always rear up and kill a person, and is often E coli breaking up. Your question there, is it contracted? or is it a mutation? is like Mastercard, where the answer is that it's a mutation that's contracted, probably; but to get pretty technical, you can't rule out that a person's own stock of E coli in their colon might not get a mutation going that would be pathogenic and then the person would "catch" it. But no, mutations are always considered rare events; whereas catching somthing -- contracting a disease, eg a pathogen -- is rare if its an uncommon disease and not rare at all if its common like in a raging epidemic. The biggest epidemics of E coli o157:H7 have involved hundred of people at one time, like in Sakai City, Japan around 2000. (The Sakai City strain was sequenced and you can inspect the mutations for yourself; it appears, upon inspection, that K12 mutated to have a pretty complete arsenal of shig gene in its holster.)Richard8081 (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Danger in an e.coli enriched flood

The main sewer pipe running through my son's 3 story condo broke apart at a seam allowing water from toilets, sinks, and showers to flood down into his condo. Is it safe for him to continue staying in his condo after he wipes it all up as best he can after the tenants on the top floor stop using their toilets, sinks and showers until the pipe is mended? What kind of plain old household cleaning can kill e.coli? Should he move out until a cleaning company comes in to clean it after the pipe is mended?

Normal household bleach kills it just fine. The way you get it is if you eat or drink contaminated food and water, so he needs to check with the plumbers if the tapwater is OK and clean all his kitchen surfaces and utensils carefully. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

small errors

I notice that the article refers to E. coli O111:B4. The 'B' is almost certainly an 'H' because E. coli only has O, H and K surface antigens. I notice that the figure in the section on gastrointestinal infection refers to the cells as 'oblong shape'. I don't think this is very helpful for a 3 dimensional object. Would 'cylindrical' be better? 115.128.29.61 (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 31 December 2009

The reference PMID 1976876 says O111:B4, but notes an unusual serology that differed from most other E. coli strains. Since this isn't a common strain it is a bad example. I'll also reword the diagram. Thanks for the review! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Databases

To user 24.148.21.177: Thank you for adding links to additional databases with information about E. coli. But why do you keep deleting the links to EcoliHub and EcoliWiki??? Siegele (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a bad idea to use E coli as the common experimental organism it eventually became. E coli pathovars are a real menace these days. Too bad we didn't use some soil microorganism that we have nothing much in common with; E coli are practically a part of us; they're our little commensal friends in our very own bowels. I mention this because somewhere in the E(scherichia) coli article it says how strains of E coli arise from natural mutations or even labwork, but then dismisses any danger from lab mutations that are pathogenic. Richard8081 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Order

I changed the order to Enterobacteriales(but I put a wrong Edit summary: [1]... Hope the change is correct. Christian75 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in enteropathogenic E. coli section

Some inaccuracies in this section:

  1. EPEC do not lack fimbriae. In fact, several pili are involved in EPEC adherence, including the bundle-forming pilus in typical EPEC and the E. coli common pilus (which is already mentioned in the EHEC section).
  2. EPEC, by definition, do not produce Shiga toxin (strains that do are actually EHEC).
  3. The word "virotype" should be changed to "pathotype".
  4. Only a subset of EPEC strains are invasive - most of the well-characterized strains are completely extracellular pathogens.

A reference describing features of different E. coli pathotypes: Kaper et al. (2004) "Pathogenic Escherichia coli" Nature Reviews Microbiology 2(2):123-40. Ecolifan (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Split speculation

This a speculation to see what people think, I do not mean to be a troll. I started a page Escherichia coli (molecular biology) for K-12 and B strain derivatives (which I'll finish one day) as when a biochemist/geneticist says E.coli he/she mean a modified K-12 strain (λ- F- ΔrecA etc) and it is its own universe separate from the clinical E.coli, I think the pathogenic E.coli should have its own too. In fact, my ballpark figure of the content based on length of page would divide this article into roughly 10% intro, 25% diversity/description, 65% pathogenicity and 10% genetics tool. This means that this article focuses primarily on the pathogenicity of E.coli. Proposal: The pathogenicity section could be made its own article reducing this bias and allowing the pathogenic section to be expanded even more. --Squidonius (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

O104 ; H4 strain German Outbreak

I am wondering if O104:H4 the strain responsible for the German outbreak should not be included in the phylogeny along with a short section about the outbreak in Germany. I am not sure I have the requisite understanding of the topic to start editing the main article beyond typo's --Matt (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The pathogenic traits are for the most part laterally acquired so that would not be doable. Furthermore, the phylogeny is there from a ecologists point of view, not medical, so I am fairly certain that no medic has sequenced any O104:H4 genes. --Squidonius (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback I am not wiser but quite fascinated by the story of E.coli, I had always known it was one of our gut flora but knew very little about its more undesireable cousins. So does the tone and direction of this article lean towards having a Notable Outbreaks section or would that draw away from the desired tone ?--Matt (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the overall theme/tone of the article, there isn't one, hence the B class rating. In the post above, I was asking a very similar question, but got no answer. A "notable outbreak" section would indubitably increase the content of interest to those reading about pathogenic E. coli. --Squidonius (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Quality section is poorly written and speculative

Most of this information is found elsewhere in the article where it is phrased far better. The last section is particularly unsatisfactory and should not conclude an otherwise interesting wikipedia entry. Perhaps the whole section should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.136.224 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I have deleted this section. Graham Colm (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be a copy-paste edit from an article (link) done by an IP user this week. It is quite worrying that it was missed, but it was inevitable given the fact that there are so many edits going on and only the last one is displayed on the watchlist —I must confess I simply press "diff" and not "hist" to check—. This article gets loads of traffic and I am not happy with its quality and a lot of the edits seem minor but constructive, so it does not require protection, right? --Squidonius (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Subpages...

There may be a lot of red-links, but there are many "subpages"... I am thinking of making a disambiguation page keeping E. coli where it is (have no idea about format of disamb. pages though!). Here is a list of strains I found on the page and by searching... Innocuous:

  • Escherichia coli strain Nissle 1917 also known as Mutaflor

Laboratory:

  • E. coli K-12, one of two laboratory strains (innocuous)
  • Escherichia coli B, the other of the two lab strains from which all lab substrains originate from
    • Escherichia coli BL21(DE3) possess T7 polymerase allowing expression with pET plasmids

Pathogenic:

Would that be helpful? --Squidonius (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hid section

I hid a section until someone gives it the green light. Namely other methods in "Laboratory diagnosis" section as I suspect that elisa, PCR etc are research diagnostic methods and not accepted clincal methods. So revert my edit if I am wrong, delete section if I am right, then. --Squidonius (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

British or American?

A recent edit changed a handful of words from the Queen's to the yankee's speak. I do not care much how the words are spelt, I just want the article to be damn good, so either one is okay with me — even the incorrectly spelt one. Nevertheless, there is a process involved in changing the language: there is, in fact, a Union Jack at the top of the discussion and most taxonomy pages are in British English etc. So just to get the palaver out of the way: anyone in favour of American English? --Squidonius (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The precedent is to use British English. Usage must be consistent. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, I see "feces" here [2] Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I was the one who changed the spellings (along with correcting a number of words which were misspelled in either version), but a quick look at the early history of the article confirms that from the very first edit, AmE spelling was used. Even after the article was expanded past stub status, it used AmE spelling. The Union Jack tag was added in November 2010, immediately after the editor who added the tag changed the spellings throughout the article from (mostly) AmE to BrE. The MoS has a section on this, and states that the original spellings should be preserved unless there is a strong tie to another culture. See WP:ENGVAR. Horologium (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant: that annuls the problem. I have removed the misleading {{BrE}}. I have not added {{AmE}} as taxonomy pages are normally in British English (with the dryness in vocabulary of a taxonomist). --Squidonius (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Outbreak in Canadian Food March 2012

http://swo.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120321/e-coli-contamination-source-120321/20120321/?hub=SWOHome

Someone should add that to 'recent events' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.199.33 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the "Escherius" version of the name? Google confirms that I'm not the only one who thought that was the correct spelling. Wikipedia doesn't appear to contain it; I'd think at least it deserves a mention under Common Misconceptions or something. 65.128.228.249 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Escherichia coli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC) A pretty good start, there are, however, a few minor points to clear up.

  1. The lead is a very good brief scientific description. However, Wikipedia is meant to be a general encyclopedia, so it would be a good idea to first give a simple description for non-biologists. A sentence or two would suffice, I think.  Done
  2. The article is a little on the hard side. I've studied biology, and, while I didn't focus on microbiology, I did take a couple classes. I still had to check links to find out what "peritrichous" and to remind myself what "enteric" meant. As such, I think the article could stand to define terms a bit more.
Can you please mention them.
Eh, I waive the point. I was eyeing "Gram-negative" and "faculatively anaerobic", but that's so basic to microbiology that maybe it's not worth it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Done
  1. "Escherichia coli is a species." ...Is there any point to this sentence? If you get that far into the article without picking up that information.... Done
  2. The phylogeny chart could use more introduction, and explaining of the different groups labelled on it.
As I am not a student of biology, I have very little information about it. I will ask a microbiologist editor.RRD13 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Much information has been provided. Anymore will make it overdetailed. RRD13 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. "Bacterium coli was the type species of the now invalid genus Bacterium when it was revealed that the former type species ("Bacterium triloculare") was missing." - What, exactly, happened here? Did they lose the sample? Did the species become extinct? I'm only really familiar with type species for larger organisms, admittedly, but this seems to call for a little more elucidation.
It was reclassified. RRD13 (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you please tell me where it is.RRD13 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, this article is pretty good. I'm going to guess that it's only been worked on by microbiologists, though, as it could use a little work to make it more useful for general readers (while keeping all the information, just starting from a step further back, as it were). Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Looking it over again... Promoted. It will likely need a copyedit before FA, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation

Why is that loudspeaker icon for pronunciation if cannot be clicked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.123.172 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As an Italian speaker who has studied Latin for five years, I think the correct pronunciation of Escherichia coli is ɛskɛrɪ'kɪɑː 'kɒlɪ. I hope I have put the stresses in the correct positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.167.249 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree

I very much appreciate the work that went into creating the phylogenetic tree for this article. However, it includes so many strains that it seems a bit unwieldy for a general article on E. coli. Is it necessary that an encyclopedic article on this topic demonstrate the relationship between 4 strains of K-12 and 4 strains O157:H7? Perhaps a new sub-article could be created, maybe Phylogeny of Escherichia coli, and this excellent figure could be moved there. Also, the sentences preceding the figure are so vague that an untrained reader will have difficulty understanding what it represents. Thoughts? AlphaEta 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right regarding the need for a tidy up. I created most of the figure at first coping ad litteram an article or two, then a few strains were added as requested by some users. However, the figure predates the split into academic, medical and in general E. coli, so it is odds with the narrative: there was reason to madness, but the article has since changed. The figure should tell the reader the following:
  1. E. coli is very diverse — I'll admit this is cheating (without branch lengths it is the same as showing a detailed map of a piece of land without a scale), but E. coli is diverse
  2. Serotype and pathology have little to do with history
  3. Shigella is an E. coli in disguise
  4. All labstrains come from K-12 or B strains
  5. the German outbreak strain is close to some other strains — The readers may look at it solely to spot what it is close it, even though it is not informative (point 2).
I'll extend the text above it — it was its figure caption — to clarify it. --Squidonius (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
PS. Moving it to its own page is not a bad idea... I did some tweaks but it repeats stuff in different sections. --Squidonius (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have concerns about the accuracy of the phylogenetic tree. Compare it to the one Figure 4 in this PLoS Genetics paper. The way the tree is drawn makes it look like B2 is ancestral to the other groups. That's not the case. --JimHu (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Eubacteria"

For future reference, "Eubacteria" is an obsolete term for the entire Domain Bacteria back when it was thought to be a mere Kingdom in the same Domain ("Prokarya") with Archaea (also now known from subsequent genetic findings to be a full Domain). It is not the name of any subgroup of the Domain Bacteria. That being said, with more than 100 Phyla in the Domain Bacteria, I find it inevitable that they are grouped into Kingdoms within the Domain which the Commission will eventually recognize when enough research comes to light. Even then, however, probably none of the bacterial Kingdoms will be named "Eubacteria," as that would be a very confusing reuse of an obsolete name for the entire Domain. (In particular, it would be confusing to any student required to read old papers as well as recent ones.) Anyway, this should explain my recent Edit to this Article better than the mere Edit Summary found in the Page History could. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree (again)

I made a few changes to the cladogram to fix the "duplicate arguments" errors (there were three such errors). Not surprising that some errors would creep in for such a large phylogenetic tree.

The effect of the changes is to make the displayed tree even bigger. As I am not an expert in biology, I think someone should probably check it over - and if editing, pay atttention to the hidden categories at the bottom of the page: a GA shouldn't be in an error-tracking category. Regards,

--NSH002 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Escherichia coli

Cyberbot II has detected links on Escherichia coli which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2011/06/Enterohemorrhagic-Escherichia-Coli-EHEC-outbreak-in-Germany.aspx
    Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Escherichia coli. 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 to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Growth in feces

I reverted this [3] addition, which was added by the author of the study. I'm sorry to say this, but I question whether this is a good authoritative source since the journal is not indexed on PubMed. Please see WP:BESTSOURCES. We should at least wait until the journal article in question is cited in a scientific review article about E. coli before describing the study in this wiki article. CatPath (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Escherichia coli. 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 to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Table of diagnostic tests

Krhersick2016 made an interesting addition of a table of diagnostic tests for E. coli which I thought helpful. Each test was sourced to a reputable source and it provided useful information. The location of the table in the article was inappropriate, but that could have been easily fixed. Boghog reverted the edit as "Off topic". I disagree and would welcome the views of others.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It would really help if this table were put in context. Why is this table important? Including a list of diagnostic tests without special justification probably fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTHOWTO. Also the references were malformed and all appear to be WP:PRIMARY. Far better would be to replace the table with a paragraph describing available test backed up with WP:SECONDARY sources in an appropriate section near the end of this article. Boghog (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The diagnostic test table is being added to a few bacterial articles of late by different users (P. aeruginosa and B. subtilis happened to be on my watchlist). Personally, I don't like it because I think it's useful to only an incredibly small fraction of our readers. The info might be better placed (or may already exist) in some kind of database (perhaps Wikidata? or BacDive or some similar database which we already have links to here?). That said I haven't been reverting the additions, and I don't have a strong feeling regarding their inclusion either way. Interested to hear the opinions of others. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's another one at Klebsiella pneumoniae. Another account which has only edited this article. Just to clarify it's pretty clear nothing sinister is going on here. It's probably a class assignment trying to improve articles by adding ID info? Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I agree with you that diagnostic test are likely to be only of interest of a small fraction of readers. One of the things that really bothered me about these edits is that this obscure material was placed at the beginning of these articles. Given the low importance of these sections, I have moved the material near the end of the article. Boghog (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Just another note, BacDive does indeed carry this info (e.g. see P. aeruginosa). I think since the ID info is specific to an audience of microbiologists, it may be best left in databases rather than in our articles (though certainly I'm open to being convinced otherwise). I haven't reverted because I'm hoping to reach out to these (student?) editors and try to gently point them in the direction of other productive work within microbiology articles, but haven't yet had the time. We could certainly use more hands/eyes. Will have time later this week. Ajpolino (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Escherichia coli. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Eschericia coli is the most studied bacteria.

New to this, and not sure how to update, or the requirements.

There is a "Citation needed" next to the text stating that E.coli is the most studied bacterium. I am not sure if this fulfils the requirements for a citation, but Principles of Biochemistry (fifth edition) David L.Nelson and Michael M.Cox ISBN 9781429208925 states that "Escherichia coli is the most studied bacterium" (Chapter 1.1, pg 5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhiaden (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This Harvard-Technion antibiotic study seems notable, but I couldn't find it on WP, and don't know where to put it - here, on Escherichia coli in molecular biology, Antibiotic sensitivity, Antimicrobial resistance, Evolutionary pressure - or what ? TGCP (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Mutaflor

Theodor_Morell#Hitler's_physician says that Mutaflor consist of hydrolyzed E. coli. Is that correct? --Espoo (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Affect on humans

Can E. coli affect humans? A.B Sheen (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See Escherichia_coli#Role_in_disease and note that "children" and "the elderly" both refer to groups of human beings in standard English. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

E.coli growth

The lead mentions that E.coli can grow for 3 days in fresh fecal matter, but the growth is not further discussed in the subsequent sections. For instance, how the lifespan of these bacteria differs within organisms vs outside of organisms, and how the growth differs depending on the organism they inhabit. Irondome44 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Escherichia_coli/Archive_2&oldid=1142364271"