Talk:Actinobacteria

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Microbiology High‑importance

	This redirect 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
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

CHANGE NEEDED TO PAGE!!!!

There is wrong content on this page. Not all of this strain of bacteria, Actinobacteria, are aerobic. Actinomyces isrealii, in particular, is a slightly anaerobic gram positive rod found usually as oral flora and produces sulfer granules in anaerobic condition. Meaning, that in microbial texts, this bacteria is regarded as an anaerobe and usually will not be found in the aerobes section of gram positive rod bacteria.

cvillareal

slashdoting in progress (LOCK PARENT NOW)

That's not necessary; in fact, it would be counterproductive. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Given what's been posted in the past hour, I disagree. --Howardjp 20:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to. :) -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm moderately new here. :) How is that done? --Howardjp 20:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've hit my limit of three reverts on the parent and now am reverting the Talk page. Anyone else want to have some fun now? --Howardjp 20:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, by now, you're probably right - the page should be protected. I'll do that. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Problem

What vandalism? I can't see the problem.

-- Probably /. and Wiki thought it was an act of vandalism. It IS for small sites and servers

-- Nope, some funny guy deleted the whole content and placed a link to /. instead. I don't think wikipedia.org can be slashdotted easily

Actually we have close to an order of magnitude more hits than slashdot, according to Alexa. Pakaran (ark a pan) 02:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets decidedly sluggish whenever Slashdot links it on the front page. The Wikipedia servers may have more capacity than most sites that get slashdotted, but it's also running close to capacity most of the time. --Carnildo 19:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)@

Content

Could someone provide an explanation of the topic in plain language? The current text is very technical and difficult to understand, if the reader does not have a background in biology. I tried looking up "Actinobacteria" in some dictionaries, medical sites, and even the database of diseases at the National Organization for Rare Diseases, but I couldn't find any information. Most of the hits in search engines simply point to open content versions of the Wiki article. --Westendgirl 05:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will try a bit--Basically, the bacteria in question is a strain that are all gram positives, this means that they have no cell wall, only a membrane. When it refers to being an aerobe, this means that it is oxygen loving and only will grow in the presence of oxygen; if it does come in contact with oxygen, it will usually die or at least be suppressed to a sporalated form (going dormant with a very protective mucus layer). The part about the DNA is self explainatory, just has more of certain base pairs than others, so the mRNA that is transcribed from it will get translated (turned into protein), usually doing with what its resistant too or what proteins are expressed, etc. The branching filaments may be referencing to the way that the bacteria looks on culture plates (agars), in which some have a "bread crumb" look to them, but that I'm not too sure about. Hope that helps.

Cvillareal

That did help. Thanks! Why not include the explanation in the article? --Westendgirl 08:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because it applies to all bacteria, not just this group. It's covered, or should be, on linked pages like gram positive. Josh

I don't know much about this topic, but I did unlock the article last night, so feel free to add to it or whatever :) Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bacteria vs. Fungi

Having Actinomycota redirect to Actinobacteria (rather than vice-versa) may be considered controversial to some mycologists, as it indicates a classification bias for an organism with fungal and bacterial properties which hasn't been decidedly categorized yet. Maybe this controversy should be a headnote in the main article, if anyone can find a cite for it. Thomas B 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this controversy was settled many years ago. None of the recent classifications of fungi include Actinomycetes, and all the trees of bacteria include Actinobacteria. Josh

What about Actinomyces isrealii, mentioned in comments above? Thomas B 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subclasses?

Why are there subclasses in a phylum with ONE class? Shouldn't we get rid of the one class and call the subclasses classes? Wouldn't that make more sense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Werothegreat (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it would be, BUT we are just an encyclopedia, not a committee of scientists that work with these organisms. --Kupirijo (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This article to my opinion needs a lot of expansion. I think we need to work on the following categories

Actinobacteria and ecology

Actinobacteria and biotechnology

Pathogenic actinobacterial strains

I would be changing the article in the coming days to fit into the about format. If there is any suggestions or objections please do let me know. Thanks. Wikiality ^\talk 13:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some of this content should go to the order of Actinomycetales

(especially the description on pathogens like mycobacteria, nocardia, rhodococcus ... these are all actinomycetales) Damir Perisa 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A picture please?

Can someone add a picture to this phylum please? --Kupirijo (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing link?

Thomas-Cavalier Smith suggests that Eukaryotes evolved from Actinobacteria. Shouldn't we mention the importance of Actinobacteria in the evolutionary tree? --Kupirijo (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actinomycetes are not equal to Actinobacteria

Actinomycetes are only a genus of the phylum Actinobacteria. Other genera would be: Acidimicrobium, Rubrobacter, Actinobaculum, etc... The Actinobacteria is a huge phylum, comprising more than 40 families, from whom one only is Actinomycetaceae where you can find the genus in question in. I listed up a bit of the official taxonomy from "Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, 2nd Edition" from 2005, to give a bit of an overview of the complexity of bacterial taxonomy:

Phylum BXIV Actinobacteria

Class I Actinobacteria

Subclass I Acidimicrobidae

Order I Acidimicrobiales

Suborder IV Acidimicrobineae

Family I Acidimicrobiaceae

Genus I Acidimicrobium

Subclass II Rubrobacteridae

Order I Rubrobacterales

Suborder V Rubrobacterineae

Family I Rubrobacteriaceae

Genus I Rubrobacter

Genus II Conexibacter

Genus III Solirubrobacter

Subclass V Actinobacteridae

Order I Actinomycetales

Suborder VIII Actinomycineae

Family I Actinomycetaceae

Genus I Actinomyces

Genus II Actinobaculum

Genus III Arcanobacterium

Genus IV Mobiluncus

Genus V Varibaculum

--Xavierschmit (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The genus is called Actinomyces. Actinomycetes is an informal term to include most Actinobacetria, but usually to only the filamentous and branched growth showing members of Actinobacteria. Since the term actinomycete is not formal, it doesn't need to be italicised nor needs to be first character capital. This is similar to the term streptomycetes, which includes not just the genus Streptomyces but also Kitasatospora and Streptacidiphilus, some even extend it to include Nocardiopsis (in that sense all sporo-actinomycetes). Nowadays the term Actinobacteria is used as a synonymn of actinomycetes. This was quite explicite in the recent International Symposium on Biology of Actinomycetes (ISBA) in Newcastle-Gateshead, where it covered all of Actinobacteria and not just filamentous or brached forms alone. I believe that there is no formal declaration of making the term actinomycetes absolent yet. Probably they might propose a solution for this in the next ISBA, which is to take place in China (Shangai I believe). Nevertheless, with great actinobacterial systematitians not around (Stan Williams is dead and Michael Goodfellow will be retired by then) I don't personally think there will be anything happening like that. To cut the long story short, actinomycetes is currently used as a synomymn of Actinobacteria. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 18:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genome

I noticed the high GC content was mentioned, but don't Actinobacteria also have a linear genome? Is that worth mentioning? Pdcook (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Actinobacteria. 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: 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) 06:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]