Talk:Acid-fastness

message: wt questions r asked during the performance of acid fast staining -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.253.77 (talk • contribs).
* I'm sorry, what about acid fast staining did you want more info on? -- MarcoTolo 06:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: The term Ziehl–Neelsen stain refers to the identification of Mycobacterium spp such as M. tuberculosis and M. leprae. AFS (acid fast stain)  as a term generally refers to the identification of many microbial species beyond Mycobacterium species. For example it is used for Cryptosporidium parvum (a protozoan) or Nocardia staining! In Nocardia and Rhodococcus the stain is modified (to 1% H2SO4). 688dim (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The terms should'' ''not'' be murged, as AFS (acid fast stain) is used generally for various species (e.g. weak in Nocardia & Rhodococcus or even some protozoa), contrary to Ziehl - Neelsen that is AFS used for ''Mycobacterium spp''

message: Acid-fast organisms are easy to characterize using standard microbiological techniques (e.g. Gram stain - if an acid-fast bacillus (AFB) was gram stained, the result would be an abnormal gram positive organism, which would indicate that further testing wasn't necessary), though they can be stained using concentrated dyes, particularly when the staining process is combined with heat. Once stained, these organisms resist the dilute acid and/or ethanol-based de-colorization procedures common in many staining protocols, hence the name acid-fast.[2]
It should be, as with the Spanish translation, that Acid-fast organisms are NOT easy to characterize using standard microbiological techniques [...], though they can be stained using conentraded dyes [...]
At the end, these Acid-fast organisms are resistant to a normal Gram test, and although they do incorporate the staining quite easily, they end being confusing. Perhaps the word easy is not appropiate  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.24.16.63 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph: These organisms are easy to characterize, "though". It should be NOT easy to characterize 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acid-fastness. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601111144/http://microbelibrary.org/component/resource/laboratory-test/3112-endospore-stain-protocol to http://www.microbelibrary.org/component/resource/laboratory-test/3112-endospore-stain-protocol
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article used to include the sentence:
Acid-fast organisms are difficult to characterize using standard microbiological techniques (e.g. Gram stain - if an acid-fast bacillus (AFB) was gram stained, the result would be an abnormal gram positive organism, which would indicate that further testing wasn't necessary), though they can be stained using concentrated dyes, particularly when the staining process is combined with heat.
This is just incorrect, a characterising feature of acid-fast organisms is how difficult they are to stain with other methods, including the gram stain. I don't know how this ended up saying easy, but I changed it to 'difficult'.
In addition, the article used to say "The most common staining technique used to identify genetically engineered acid-fast bacteria...". I don't know how that ended up in there, or what genetic engineering has to do with anything at all. I suspect vandalism, but these edits have been in place for a while. I removed the term 'genetically engineer', which, even if true (doubtful), is irrelevant to an article on a property of cellular structures.
I am not an expert on this topic, but these two pieces of flagrantly incorrect/irrelevant text in this start class article made me a little nervous about the validity of the rest of it. I am curious if anyone with a greater knowledge of microbiology than I has any input on the rest of the article. At the very least, a few more high-quality citations seem to be in order.
Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible old vandalism or just incorrect information 

message: While it is true that Mycobacteria are the most well known acid-fast organisms, this isn't an article on Mycobacteria, we have one of those already, it is an article on the property of acid-fastness. Later sections of the article do a good job of illustrating this, but I feel like the initial part of the article has too great of a focus on that one genus. If anyone has time it would be great to flesh it out with more information on how acid-fastness works in e.g. spores, sperm, protozoa, etc.
Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 23:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While other organisms are acid-fast, the medical use of acid-fast stains is nearly exclusively in the diagnosis or exclusion of mycobacterial infection. I think it's inevitable that the article is going to contextualize the property by emphasizing its medical importance. - Nunh-huh 02:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, that is reasonable I suppose. I still think it would be nice to have more context here, but I don't have time to do it myself sadly. Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive focus on Mycobacterium?