Talk:Streptococcus pyogenes

message: I think under "virulence factors" it's just C5a peptidase (meaning it degrades the complement anaphylotoxin C5a released in the complement cascade) rather than anti-C5a peptidase (meaning it degrades the portion of the cell wall on S. pyogenes that degrades C5a).  Just a thought.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.69.50 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, that's correct. I've removed the anti-. 12:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virulence factors 

message: What biolevel is this bacterium? Ace ofgabriel 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biolevel?

message: Doesn't S. pyogenes have a hyaluronic acid capsule that's relevant in disease? Should this be mentioned somewhere? 203.5.70.1 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true.  The composition of the capsule is now stated.  NighthawkJ 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyaluronic acid capsule

message: In the section on diagnosis, it currently includes the following:  "As a precautionary measure tests are also carried out to check for illnesses including, but not limited to, Syphilis, and Avascular Necrosis, and Clubfoot."  I'm a layman with no education at all in this area, but knowing how rampant vandalism is on Wikipedia, I have to ask:  Clubfoot?  Is that a real avenue of interest in this topic? Monkeyzpop (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be vandalism. I removed it. NighthawkJ (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Club foot

message: This is nitpicky, but should it be "group A" or "Group A?"  I've seen it capitalized differently in different entries.  My micro text uses lower case, and I've also seen it that way in NEJM .  If there is no current standard, I would advocate the lower case usage.  Rex Manning (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization convention 

message: How come the class is put as "bacilli?" Last time I checked, it was a coccus. Its hinting that in the name, even. 64.180.31.59 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the designated class- it doesn't mean that it is morphologically a rod.  Take a look at the WP entry for class bacilli.  Rex Manning (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocci/bacilli 

message: For the shorhand column, i just assumed that it is SpeA and SpeC, not Spe A or Spe C.  If I'm wrong, fix.174.3.111.148 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorthand For Spec Proteins 

message: Need to remove the bias and clean up/expand the research/debate concerning PANDAS; I simply don't know enough about the subject. juanless 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathogenesis - S. pyogenes and OCDs  

message: In looking at the illustrations for Streptococcus pyogenes on at least two different pages (Streptococcus pyogenes and Group A streptococcal infections), the illustration shows small, round organisms in chains that are redin color on a bluish green back ground.
Proper use of the Gram's stain technique should result in Strep. pyogenes staining dark blue to purple.
I'm not sure how this happened, and don't happen to have a better illustration to hand, but this really needs to be changed.
ck
DocKrin (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strep group bacteria are Gram positive organisms 

message: I removed the following section from spycatcher (disambiguation), but it sounds like good information that could be worked into this article by someone more familiar with the topic than I. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SpyCatcher 

message: There's some redundancy about S. pyogenes being group A strep in the beginning. Maybe this should be merged with that page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobonki (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group A redundancy  

message: There's redundancy in the intro. Also, merge with group A strep page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobonki (talk • contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group A redundancy 

message: The article currently says: "An estimated 700 million GAS infections occur worldwide each year. While the overall mortality rate for these infections is 0.1%, over 650,000 of the cases are severe and invasive, with these cases having a mortality rate of 25%." The citation for that claim is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854683/, which in turn cites https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16253886/ for their claim. The problem is that the claim doesn't seem to add up: If "the overall mortality rate for these infections is 0.1%", then 700,000 die from them each year. But if there are only 650.000 cases that are severe, and that 25% of these lead to death, then there are 162,500 deaths from severe cases. As I assume only severe cases lead to death (how can an "insevere" case cause death?), that would mean that there are "only" 162,500 deaths per year in total. So something is not right. I am not able to figure out what is right, partly because I don't have full access to what seems to be the proper end-source https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16253886/; I only have access to the abstract which does not explicitly mention a 0.1% mortality rate. Something is off, and at least the sentence should be clarified so it actually makes sense. --Jhertel (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence about mortality doesn't make sense 

message: — Assignment last updated by Madi oule (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Journal Club

message: In evaluating the article, it’s very thorough. However, it also could benefit from more recent statistics and research. Maybe the sections about SpyCatcher and PANDAS whose removal was mentioned earlier could be improved and replaced with some work. Adding such items would help to enhance the article's current relevancy.Mchristensen8 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an article on PANDAS and a link to it will suffice. Same goes for SpyCatcher. With regard to "earlier", that was a decade or so ago! Knowledge of these subjects has advanced. Graham Beards (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing Thoroughness with Relevance 

message: There is an internal link to a page for T-antigen in the Serotyping subsection, but it appears to be an article about the SV40 viral tumor antigen. I don't think this is the same molecule as the T-antigen mentioned in this article. Is there simply no WP article about this particular molecule? Is it under a different name? Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be so have changed the sentence to "Later, in 1946, Lancefield described the serologic classification of S. pyogenes isolates based on components of their surface pili (known as the T-antigen) which are used by bacteria to attach to host cells." Graham Beards (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error with link in the Serotyping subsection?