Talk:Firmicutes

Comment

I believe there is a minor contradiction in the scientific classification of Firmicutes. The classification box on the rights lists Firmicutes as a division under the Kingdom bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification reserves Division for only members of the Plant Kingdom.

I believe that Firmicutes should be considered a Phylum on par with the Proteobacteria even though Phylum seems to be reserved for the Animal Kingdom. I have considered division to be used exclusively for plants.

Contradiction

Moreover, Firmicutes figures as a phylum in the section on Bacillus subtilis! Googling for Firmicutes reveals more references to it as a phylum than as a division and googling for "Firmicutes phylum" beats googling for "Firmicutes division" 2220 : 46.

Top.Squark 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a new type of Firmicutes?

There have been a few articles [1] [2] discussing a species related to Firmicutes that uses radiated water and not sunlight as its food source. It seems like this maybe ought to be added to this article, but I'm not really sure how to incorporate it. TerraFrost 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nature magazine Video

I intend to add this Jeffery Gordon reference.

Jeffery Gordon et al, [3] Nature video, 2006. Human Gut Microbes

I got a request from Nearly Headless Nick 13:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC), to discuss it here before trying again to add it to the page.

Mycoplasma

This article lists Mycoplasma (Mollicutes) as part of the Firmicutes, while the Mollicutes and Tenericutes articles, and also other sources like the ribosomal database project lists them as Tenericutes. Anyone know what is correct, or can both be correct? 129.241.85.173 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I've been trying to find out how "Firmicutes" is correctly pronounced. Most of the sources I have looked at seem unreliable. Is it pronounced firm-eh-cutes or firm-eh-cute-eez? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.131.3 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it fuhrm'-uh-kyootz' (which I'm guessing is homonymous with your former guess). I'm from Midwest America, though, where "fiddle" and "little" rhyme, so my regional pronunciation of this word may be drastically different from wherever you're from. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering this too. When someone finds it out, it should be added to the article. 174.28.150.97 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to lean toward fur´mikūts but have heard a smattering of different versions. Definite sources to confirm this sort of thing are rare if not nonexistent. §everal⇒|Times 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this for the pronunciation and I believe its a good source. http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=firmicutes — (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC) --Unpw (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge: The howjsay pronunciation is the one to use: fir MIK kyoo teez. Since Linnaeus began the whole thing with Latin, we still stick to latin pronunciations and use latinized versions of non-latin words when naming new species, e.g. Strigiphilus garylarsoni. Our English habits make us want to leave out the "teez." However, unlike English, Latin was not a bastardized language. It was pure, and every letter counted. (Why bother with silent Es or letters that don't actually have a sound of their own? Yeah, that's right. I'm talking about you, C.) So, the best rule when approaching a new scientific name is to pronounce each and every letter. Another example: the bacterial phylum Bacteroidetes - bak teer roy DAY teez or bak teer ROY de teez. I believe the first is the most proper, but the rules for stressing syllables in Latin are somewhat complicated and conditional, and I don't know them all. Also, check out http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~microlab/CLASSINFO/IMAGESCI/pronunciation%20guide.pdf. I would argue with some of his pronunciations, but only on minor points. KugelaP (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Bacteroidetes, personally I would say bak-ter-oh-ID-it-eez ... I absolutely agree that Firmicutes should be pronounced fir-MIK-oo-teez. It's more of a problem when you use it not as the name of the Phylum, but as a plural to mean "members of the Firmicutes." For example, as in "Bacillus and other Firmicutes have a thick cell wall." Technically, maybe it should be Firmicuteses, but that sounds really odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.26.23.159 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Role in obesity

Firmicutes are suspected to take part in positive feedback of gaining weight http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2012/09/12/the-food-fight-in-your-guts-why-bacteria-will-change-the-way-you-think-about-calories/ Shoshie8 (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the original source of information about firmicutes came from this study, https://www.pnas.org/content/102/31/11070.long#F1, "Obesity alters gut microbial ecology." This study is not breaking the specific firmicutes changes and some firmicutes are extremely essential to health.

This paper, https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(08)00089-9, "The overall diversity of the Western diet microbiota dropped dramatically, due to a bloom in a single class of the Firmicutes—the Mollicutes."

This one, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829158?dopt=Abstract, l. reuteri is higher in obesity, but bifobacterium is also lower.

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(14)60976-9/fulltext - obese people have lower firmicutes of some species — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GC content (vs Actinobacteria)

The Firmicutes page and Actinobacteria page seem to be contradiction regarding GC content.

From the Firmicutes page: "Scientists once classified the Firmicutes to include all Gram-positive bacteria, but have recently defined them to be of a core group of related forms called the low-G+C group, in contrast to the Actinobacteria. "

From the Actinobacteria page: "The G+C content of freshwater Actinobacteria can be as low as 42%. In view of this, continued use of the epithet high G+C Gram positive organisms to refer to Actinobacteria must now be discontinued."

I'm assuming the content on the Actinobacteria page is more recent/correct, but I don't know enough about the subject to make a determination. (izaakm)

Mollicutes - is this a contradiction?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmicutes#Classes on firmicutes: "The group is typically divided into the Clostridia, which are anaerobic, the Bacilli, which are obligate or facultative aerobes, and the Mollicutes."

However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenericutes "Tenericutes (tener cutis: soft skin) is a phylum of bacteria that contains the Class Mollicutes."

Surely both can't be correct?

--83.244.250.15 (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Firmicutes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following 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.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

As far as I can tell, the bacteria discovered by IUB deep underground are simply another variety of sulfur bacteria. The fact that radioactive materials provides the energy for the breakdown of water to Hydrogen does not mean that the bacteria get energy from the radiation. The radiation simply converts the Hydrogen in the water to a useable form, which the bacteria then use to exploit the potential energy differences of. Sulfur bacteria have been found in many locations, and have been known about for years, this is simply a variety that lives deep underground. The interesting discovery in the articles referenced is that this reaction is able to support communities of bacteria deep underground, away from solar and geothermal sources of energy that could produce the same reaction. Also, in the article, I believe their is an error in classification:

Bacilli, order Bacillales

Bacilli, order Lactobacillales

This section consists mostly of cocci, but they are listed as bacilli.

Biochemstudent1 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firmicutes. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

s. s.

What is "s. s."?
Consider defining at SS_(disambiguation)#Biology_and_medicine.
—DIV (120.17.96.101 (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]