Talk:Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron

Wiki Education assignment: MIBO 3500 Introduction to Microbiology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brimibo2, Hb56030, GoldenRetriever18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Writtenwall, Jlynn03, Eleoni2002, Kasanchez.

— Assignment last updated by Writtenwall (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Role in immune response

Hi, the sources used in this section are primary studies and need to be used with care. If WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources, such as reviews, can be found they should be used instead. Graham Beards (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: MIBO 3500 Introduction to Microbiology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2024 and 26 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 20laupag, AlliDiaz, KatherineUGA, Brookecwoods (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Abb098, Idkhmn, Maryanne.mccord, Jemima7.

— Assignment last updated by Jemima7 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research

Hello, @Graham Beards. I had a few questions regarding the section removed from the research section on October 3rd, 2024. I saw that you stated the information regarding Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and its anti-inflammatory potential, specifically regarding gastrointestinal diseases was not an improvement and what does it mean. I wanted to thank you for keeping an eye on our article, and making sure the information added is relevant to the article. I was going to add more information to that section (such as how this study was conducted and how that can help understand gut health). I did think this research was important because it shows the properties of B. thetaiotaomicron, and the potential benefits it poses for gut health and diseases. Please let me know your thoughts on this, and how else I can improve this section to fully encompass the research that reflects the model organism status of B. thetaiotaomicron. 20laupag (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all you should read WP:OWN where you will see that is is not your article. You added this to the article:

"Its impressive catalog of 16s rRNA sequences of the gut microflora is responsible for researchers having the ability to manipulate B. thetaiotaomicron’s genome and allows for a better understanding of the gene expression in the human gut based on different elements of the microflora."

I'm sorry but this makes no sense, which is what I said in the edit summary. What are you saying here? Graham Beards (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my mistake. I am still adjusting to how to use Wikipedia. I just now see that you were referring to that section of the paragraph. Would it be better if I revised that sentence for better readability? I admit it does sound confusing reading it over again. Please disregard my initial message. That section of my article has disappeared and it is not showing me why it was removed or by whom in the edit history. 20laupag (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. No need to apologise, we were are new editors once. The edit history is here [1]. You just have seen it to have known it was me who removed it. Or are you referring to a previous edit? I can't see where you mention anti-inflammatory potential. Graham Beards (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to see where you specifically addressed the issue with the sentence regarding the rRNA sequences. However, I had another paragraph in the research section stating

"Because of the anti-inflammatory properties of B. thetaiotaomicron, it was tested to see if there was potential to combat the effects of gastrointestinal diseases. It was shown that B. thetaiotaomicron did offer protection against weight loss, inflammation, and other effects of colitis."

I was hoping to expand on this more, but this was the section was removed that I was initially referring to. I saw that you were the last editor, so I thought the comments were regarding this section. I am sorry for the confusion. 20laupag (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are listed here; [2] I can't see the one about anti-inflammatory properties/ Graham Beards (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put it under "Expanding research section" on October 3rd 2024. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacteroides_thetaiotaomicron&oldid=1249069819)

Linked above is the old version of the article that included that section. I did not see any edits that specifically mentioned why it was removed. I will continue to improve that section and add it back.

Thank you for your help with navigating Wikipedia, and for addressing issues in the article. 20laupag (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, my apologies. Please note you will need a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for that addition and not the primary study by Delday et al. otherwise it might be be questioned or deleted. This might help in that regard. [3] Graham Beards (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. You have been very helpful. 20laupag (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research section

Hello, @Graham Beards. I saw that you took out the quote "particularly when it is from human origins, as it is more likely to contain pathogens specific to humans" from the research section. You asked where it was mentioned in the source. It is mentioned in sentence two of "Microbial Source Tracking: Current Methodology and Future Directions" (reference 43). I think that this information is important to the main idea of the paragraph, as it explains why fecal matter specific to humans is more dangerous to other humans, and why correctly identifying the origin of the fecal matter is of great importance. 20laupag (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for bringing this up here on the Talk Page. First the citation is from 2002, which is too old to hold current relevance. Secondly, the source says "generally regarded as a greater risk to human health" without providing any reliable sources as far as I can see, and "generally regarded" is not the same as "more likely". You are more likely to get enteropathic E. coli and cryptosporidium from bovine feces, campylobacter from bird feces and salmonella from chickens' poo, than hepatitis A and Norwalk from humans. Can you find an up-to-date source for your proposed addition? If not, it is best left out in my view. Graham Beards (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize the source was so old, thank you for catching that. I added a little more information, but tried to steer clear of focusing strictly on human sources of fecal pollution. 20laupag (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that (and thanked you). The section is much improved. Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]