Talk:Streptococcus agalactiae

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dsaraceni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

It would be entirely possible to make sure that both terms refer to the same article using a redirect and both terms could be used as part of the internal title ie: "Group B strep, also known as Streptococcus agalactiae, are..." The friendliness to non-medical folks can be ensured in this way. The only compelling reason to have two pages is if there actually IS a difference between the two subjects. If they are the same then having two pages creates the misleading idea that they are different. Merging is not to "save a tree", both articles would still be active, one would just redirect to the new merged article. Since so much of the information on GBS is going to be seen on SA I think a merger is in fact indicated.
Now that there is a separate page about GBS pathogenesis, I think it is worth re-opening the merger discussion. We have two pages for the same thing, both are of stub quality why edit them both up to higher quality with the same information when a little explanation that the terms are synonymous and a redirect would clarify all of this. Should we really have two Wikipedias one for the specialist and one for the non-specialist? Everyone should just write clearly enough and explain themselves well enough so that all can understand.
I am not so what to say sure about the Serephine comment. That would be the ONLY legitimate reason in my mind to keep the articles separate. However, the discussion on this page seems to have reached a consensus that I also agree to, namely that strep B and strep agalactiae are synonyms.
The other problem is that almost the entire article if not the whole article on group B strep is lifted VERBATIM from the CDC website and is not new material. Since its from the government it isn't copyrightable but it is still not appropriate to wholesale copy other pages to Wikipedia. A link is a more appropriate way to include a whole page.

CharlusIngus 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is the term used 100% of the time in OB. In the US, it is now standard of care to screen all pregnant women for GBS, so usage is very common. Using the familiar term makes the article much more user friendly for non-medical folks. Wikipedia is online vs. paper so no need to merge to save a tree.--FloNight 12:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

completely agree FWIW, this phrase is specifically used for pregnancy & testing, I dont believe it should be merged. Pinkstarmaci 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streptococcus agalactiae is a distinct bacterial species. Group B Strep is an umbrella term for a group of bacteria. A merger would be in Wikipedia's worst interests as the two articles are distinct entities which deserve their own page, therefore I don't support a merger -- Serephine ♠ talk - 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym

Hello, just saw your note in the edit summary. This may help clarify. Clinically, GBS and S. agalactiae are used as synonyms; while, from precise scientific pov, not exact synonym.

[1] Characterization of Streptococcus agalactiae Strains by Multilocus Enzyme Genotype and Serotype: Identification of

Multiple Virulent Clone Families That Cause Invasive Neonatal Disease

[2] Group B Streptococcus (S. agalactiae)
[3] eMedicine - Bacterial Infections and Pregnancy : Article by Haizal Hamza, MD

--FloNight 15:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Flonight, nice to hear from you! I took a look at the websites you posted, but none of them go into much detail about other species of Group B Strep. If there are additional Group B Strep species other than S. agalactiae, then I definitely would keep the two articles separate. However, I found a reference [4] which stated the following:

S. agalactiae is the only Streptococcus species that has the group B antigen. Some other streptococcal species have recently been identified however, that cross-react with commercial slide agglutination tests (see the discussion of S. porcinus, below). GBS can also be presumptively identified by the CAMP and hippurate reactions. Together with the unique hemolytic reaction (very small zone of lysis), these two presumptive tests are very accurate in the identification.

Granted, I'm not quoting from Bergey's Manuals of Bacteriology, but the quote suggests that the "Group B Strep" is identical to Streptococcus agalactiae. By the way, I noticed that you wrote most of the "Group B Strep" article-- merge or no merge, we should definitely keep your user-friendly prose :-)

--Uthbrian 19:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user-friendly prose is nice. It is not, however, original. It is copied from another website. While this information (as opposed to the borrowed prose itself) should be kept and I appreciate Flonight's having brought it to the table, it is not original material and should be re-worked if the article is to be considered of any great quality.

--CharlusIngus 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The terms are indeed used synonymously, also by scientists in the field such as myself. GBS is a somewhat dated term, and the continued use of it in scientific literature and clinical practice is in part tradition but also pays homage to Dr. Rebecca Lancefield who classified many different streptococcal species according to which group carbohydrate antigen they displayed on their surface. The same thing goes for group A Strep (GAS) and Streptococcus pyogenes, as well as other examples. The article by Quentin et al cited above (1) does indeed use the two terms interchangeably, although I understand how it can be misunderstood in the introduction section. Thus, a merger is appropriate.

--Janulczyk 14:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I sent this discussion off in a strange direction. Everyone considers them to be synonyms, myself included. (I can see why you might not from my poorly worded post.) The S. agalactiae article says they're synonyms. GBS says they're synonyms. Case closed. GBS is the name used in a obstetrics, and is the focus of a major public health campaign. That is the reason I started the article. Having two articles that refer to each other is user friendly for the public. I'm working on a new way to classify various articles that are shared by developmental biology, obstetrics, and popular culture. Could we delay making a final decision on this until after the first of the year? My three children are home from college and I won't have much time to work on my proposal until then. Thanks--FloNight 15:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beta strep

This article has apparently also been suggested for merging. In my opinion the entry as such is a misnomer, and may add confusion to the terminology. GBS and S. agalactiae are the two names used for the species, clinically and scientifically. Beta strep likely refers to test results from a clinical microbiology laboratory, and I would consider it jargon. It is inappropriate in the sense that it refers to beta-haemolytic streptococci, which includes another very important species - group A streptococcus. The term is thus of a higher order, and not a species name. Beta haemolysis could be discussed under a haemolysis entry, alongside with alfa- and gamma-hemolysis and examples of typical species that exhibit this laboratory phenomenon. No offense. --Janulczyk 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've redirected "beta strep" to "beta hemolysis". Uthbrian (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separating Streptococcus agalactiae from its infection

I noticed that Group A streptococcal infection is separated from Streptococcus pyogenes. The former goes into the clinical aspects while the latter discusses the characteristics of the bacterium. Perhaps the same could be done with these two articles? --Uthbrian (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the best option would be to move Group B Streptococcus to Group B streptococcal infection and keep Streptococcus agalactiae as it is. --WS 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility. Perhaps it gets more intuitive like that. Still, I'd suggest some text shuffling in that case. For instance the GBS article, 2nd paragraph, contains a more scientifically correct definition of the species, while it may be on the technical side for someone just interested in the infection(s). At the same time, S. agalactiae mentions the specific conditions afflicting the neonate, while the GBS article focuses on screening and disease prevention, from an obstetrics/midwifery point-of-view. Personally, I'd prefer one, longer entry (merge), with subheadings for the various topics. Either way, if I find the time I could expand the microbiology part significantly, and add some clinical stuff, too, on GBS disease in adults and neonatal infection. After the holidays, though. --Janulczyk 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Flonight has already created Perinatal Group B Streptococcal Disease. --Uthbrian (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the notion that GBS infection (the clinical angle) and S. agalactiae (the causative organism) should follow the GAS / S. pyogenes model. MarcoTolo 05:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a student nurse studying Group B. Streptococcus or S. agalactiae, both are mentioned in Robert W. Bauman's Microbiology text and we are expected to know them... I do, however, rely on Wikipedia to clear up quite a bit of confusion that such thing create within the text and the lecture in that the articles are usually annotated and very explanatory

Merge of Group B Strep Infection

Typically I feel it is best practice to have both an article on a disease and the organism that causes the disease. Thus we have HIV and AIDS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Where does the name come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.136.243 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added some info on that to the page. Sorry I'm a bit late! Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]