Talk:Gram-negative bacteria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old discussions

Gram-staining characteristics are used for clinical as well as taxonomic purposes, and specific examples relating to specific pathogens should probably be retained. -- Someone else 23:22 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Gram-staining is useful clinically primarily because it places limits on what group a bacterium belongs to, and is only one of several tools necessary to identify a pathogen. I don't think we should try and make this page into a full guide for identifying gram-negative bacteria, and while certainly some examples are helpful, the amount given on the page is overkill. Really, how critical is it to mention Bdellovibrio, as opposed to the hundreds of other gram-negative genera that could be listed here?

I get the strong impression that the list was primarily there as a way of linking to pages on specific bacteria, which otherwise would be orphans. Relatively unimportant bacteria that belong to larger groups, though, can be linked from those groups. Saying that proteobacteria are gram-negative and the acetic acid bacteria are proteobacteria tells me that acetic acid bacteria are gram-negative, and more. I don't see the reason for giving examples beyond better-known examples like Escherichia coli and Salmonella.

I agree that the page needn't enumerate all gram-negative bacteria. On the other hand, if there's an article on any particular one, why not list it? My point is that someone examining a specimen categorizes a given bacteria as gram-negative or gram-positive, without necessarily further explicitly classifying them (e.g. "It's gram-positive cocci in chains, must be strep" vs "It's gram-positive cocci in chains, probably a Firmacute". Some notable human gram-negative pathogens like shigella, H. influenzae, Yersinia, Klebsiella' and Vibrio vulnificus could be explicitly added: I guess I'm just suggesting that the clinical names that are used be present in addition to any higher taxonomic classifications. -- Someone else 00:31 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Harder to Kill?

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT. IF I'M LOOKING UP A SCIENCE TERM ON WIKIPEDIA IT'S BECAUSE I'M NOT A SCIENTIST. THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING IN PLAIN ENGLISH. SOMEBODY PLEASE EDIT IT!!

I heard that gram-negative bacteria are harder to kill than gram-positive bacteria. Is this true, and why? If it's true, I think this could be added to the article. authraw 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not really true. More precisely, it isn't possible to make that broad a generalization without a laundry list of exceptions. For example, two common yet extraordinarily difficult to treat pathogenic organisms - Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis - are both Gram-positives. MarcoTolo 03:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics

THIS ARTICLE IS USELESS. IT TELLS ME WHY THEY'RE CALLED GRAM-NEGATIVE BUT NOT WHY IT'S A CATEGORY OR WHY THERE'S A GRAM TEST IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF I'M LOOKING UP SCIENCE TERMS ON WIKIPEDIA, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME I'M NOT A SCIENTIST.

I think this section should make clear if these characteristics are shown in all gram-negative bacteria, whether they are just more common in gram-negative than gram-positive bacteria, or whether they are characteristics that might lead to a bacteria taking up the dye. At the moment I don't know which is correct. Djr36 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To know the total viable count, we are using plate count agar. After getting the TVC value (which is very low i.e. 10) we are taking out the colony from TVC plate and doing GRAM staining. Then we are getting Gram negetive bacteria invariably. Please let me know, if Gram negetive is totaly unaccepatble for the product to be used directly in contact with the skin ? I understand the TVC value is very good and still if I am getting it GM -ve, is it at all objectionable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayan1970 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

please explain the link behind gram-negative cell walls and pathogenesis

I'm not at all familiar with microbiology and I ended up here through a series of tangents, which often happens when I read wikipedia. Anyway, after reading this article I felt that an important question was left unanswered; what is it about the structure of gram-negative cell walls that causes it to be found commonly in pathogenic bacteria?

If there is a strong correlation between this cell wall type and pathogenesis, then it begs for at least a brief explanation. The short answer from a friend (who is a periodontist, not a microbiologist), is that the cell wall is highly insoluble and therefor more resistant to phagocytosis.

That's all I felt the article was lacking. If someone would be kind enough to elaborate, I would appreciate it.

THIS PERSON IS MORE PATIENT THAN I AM. I'M TIRED OF READING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ON SCIENCE TOPICS THAT ARE NOT IN PLAIN ENGLISH. IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT IF A PERSON IS LOOKING UP A SCIENCE TERM ON WIKIPEDIA THEY ARE NOT A SCIENTIST!! IF I WERE I WOULD (A) KNOW THIS ALREADY, OR (B) BE LOOKING IT UP IN A SPECIALIZED SOURCE. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT TO AN AVERAGE PERSON, IS A GRAM-NEGATIVE BACTERIA? NOT HOW DID IT GET ITS NAME, WHAT PROTEINS ARE IN IT, ETC.

12.190.32.3 02:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Galen Matson

category for gram negative bacteria

I recently created a new [| Gram negative bacteria] also did [Gram positive bacteria] I figured it would be usefull if we put all of the bacteria into these categories on wikipedia mentioning it here so those categories can be populated

I added a link from the article to the category. A category sounds like a good way to address the concerns under Old Discussions about how many bacteria to discuss here. JeremiahJohnson (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

As on the Gram-positive page, it would be nice to have a microscope image of some stained bacteria. Asd28 02:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point - image from WP Commons added. -- MarcoTolo 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe campylobacter is oxidase positive, not oxidase negative as in the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.122.124 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Campylobacter is oxidase positive, contrary to what the image shows. As well as Helicobacter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsjohnson (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect between the two images showing the cell wall structures. One image (the large, detailed) shows a single periplasmic space; whereas, the other image (the one comparing Gram-positive and Gram-negative structures) shows two periplasmic spaces. They seem to contradict each other. Jdevola (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Archaea smuggled in

I removed "Crenarchaeota: Unique because most bacteria have gram-positive molecules in their capsules, it has gram-negative." as not only it is terribly wrong, but it makes no grammatical sense! Some Archaea do react to gram stains, but they still remain Archaea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

seriousness of presence of gm -ve bacteria in Aerobic count

Can you explain me, in a TVC plate if TVC value is well within below 100, then presence of gm -ve is too serios or the gm +ve ? If there we find Gram negetive, what to conclude. How to kill Gram negetive Aeromonas ? Thanks AYAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayan1970 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gram capitalization

I want to propose a change in the "Gram related" articles. According to several sources I've looked at, "Gram" is capitalized only if it begins a sentence or if they directly refer to a proper noun (e.g. Gram's method, gram-negative, gram-positive). The articles are inconsistent with capitalization and I want to go through fix them. richard.decal (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the name Gram comes from the name of an actual person, I believe that Gram should always be capitalized when it refers to the method named after the person, Gram (just as Southern blot is capitalized). Jdevola (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary only gives "Gram-negative" and "Gram-positive". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

see below. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"than in not Gram-positive bacteria"??

At "Characteristics" it says: "Thin peptidoglycan layer (which is much thinner than in not Gram-positive bacteria)". Should that be "than in not Gram-positive bacteria" or "than in non Gram-negative bacteria" ? Jagdfeld (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1