Talk:Mycoplasma genitalium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Redirect[edit]

Why is there a redirect from Mycoplasma to Mycoplasma genitalium? Is Mycoplasma Pneumoniae neglectable, maybe? -- Ruhrjung 04:56 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

The redirect is a temporary measure to fit Mycoplasma genitalium into the bacterial hierarchy without writing a new page. A lot of bacterial genera redirect to species at the moment, and all are somewhat inappropriate, but will be a lot of work to fix. By all means, if you would like to add a Mycoplasma article instead, please do so!
Maybe I will. :-)) Sometime... :->>> I think Mycoplasma Pneumoniae is important in terms of impact on the population/the society. I would, however, lean on old knowledge (not mine, actually, but my lover's) from medschool some 10 years ago. The relevant books are copyrighted in the early 1990s, and to fit in a textbook the knowledge ought to have been old already then.
By the way: I forgot to express my appreciation for your work. That was a mistake. :) -- Ruhrjung 06:57 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

STD[edit]

is this an STD, if its found in people with NGU only, then is it?Qrc2006 10:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The smallest non-viral genome...[edit]

...is currently identified as Carsonella ruddii. This article should be updated to reflect this. -Gavin 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of which, could there be a link to how many genes M. genitalium really has? My book here mentions 477 genes, the article however mentions more. It would be nice to be able to VERIFY the origin of this information. 178.190.73.145 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image[edit]

Mycoplasma genitalium.gif The image currently portrayed will make no sense to the majority of readers of this article. It should either be given a caption as to what exactly is represented, or an alternative picture should be used.Lilac Soul 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I'd prefer a short explanation, maybe with a link to another article that explains it more in-depth (if such a page exists). d20 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Concerning The Term "Free-living"[edit]

If M. genitalium is a parasite, then isn't the descriptor of "free-living" contradictory?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Size[edit]

M. genitalium is the smallest known free-living bacterium, and the second-smallest bacterium after the recently-discovered endosymbiont Carsonella ruddii

Can we get some figure here please? --Iustinus (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smallest known genome that can constitute a cell?[edit]

The article states that Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome that can constitute a cell, yet at the same time it concedes that Nanoarchaeum equitans, which is a cellular organism, has an even smaller genome.  --Lambiam 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mb as in MegaBITS?? Because MB is DIFFERENT from Mb![edit]

Hi, I’m not sure the Mb is correct. Can somebody tell me if this is really bits, or misspelled bytes… or even base pairs, which cannot be written as “b” at all, since that’s already reserved for bits. — 89.0.229.188 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference link no longer working[edit]

http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/urethritis-and-cervicitis.htm#uc2

Goes to Page Not Found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.102.237 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M. genitalium's correct number of genes: 575, 482, or 475?[edit]

While clarifying a statement in the article's Introduction so as to show that "smallest genome" is a function of the number of base-pairs (and not the number of genes), I added what I thought was the correct number of genes for M.genitalium. It was based on a table in the article Mycoplasma laboratorium (which stated it as 475). However, the section below gives it as 482. After further reading of the M.genitalium article, I realized that it already gave a figure of 575. So which of the three is the correct one? Titus III (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

525 genes - How do you correct a documented error?[edit]

The correct gene count, 525, is mentioned in the "Genome" section but we still have the wrong number in the intro at footnote 4. Also, Footnote 4 does not even seem to support the gene count it is next to. Also, the illustration still has the wrong "b" ,"bp" marking. Zipzip50 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Zipzip50 (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New synthetic microbe has fewest genes.[edit]

Science Magazine March 25, 2016 covers the creation of a new stripped down synthetic microbe that has the fewest genes, 473. It looks like a new hot topic, as more researchers will be using the new cell for important gene work. This may be a good reason to re-open The Minimal Genome Project as a proper page on its own.[1] Zipzip50 (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Zipzip50 (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Mycoplasma laboratorium gives a gene count for M. genitalium as 475 since Dec 2011. If this is indeed its correct gene count, then the new microbe's 473 doesn't seem to be much of an improvement. Titus III (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The correct count M. genitalium is 525, but the wrong number appears in so many places it takes a lot of time to get to them all. As to the value of this new cell, for one thing, it reproduces very rapidly, and that makes it very useful in research work. Zipzip50 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly I still can't find good resources for the gene count difference between M. labortorium Syn3.0, Syn3A, and Syn3B. It's another rather tedious facet of working with M. mycoides on top of the taxonomy issues with the clade and common misconceptions of the genus as a whole. MichaelPlasma 21:39, 20 Oct 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPlasma (talkcontribs)