Talk:Microbiology of Lyme disease

message: I believe the title of this article should be changed to inhibit confusion with the [Lyme disease] article.  Maybe change the title to something that is more specific to a topic on the genus Borrelia.  That, or find some way to merge with the Lyme disease article.--Manderson198 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I

message: The image says it's 400x magnified, but this is meaningless for a photo that can be displayed on-screen at any size. The photo description should mention the true length of the bacterium or, even beter, have a scale bar. 194.171.68.132 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microscope magnification 

message: Under "Advancing Immunology Research", the "further information" link is now broken - the section in the main Lyme Disease article is now gone.  I'm not sure where that went so I can't fix it myself.
Dllahr (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  advancing immunology "further information" link broken 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lyme disease microbiology. 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/20070204115631/http://www.lymeinfo.net/medical/LDAdverseConditions.pdf to http://www.lymeinfo.net/medical/LDAdverseConditions.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625164845/http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2006/060622.asp to http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2006/060622.asp
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) 16:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just noting that since 2015,  the Lyme-related Borrelia species have been separated in a new genus, Borreliella Adeolu & Gupta, 2015, a move which has been disputed by some (Margos et al., 2017) but reaffirmed by Barbour et al., 2017. References are:
* Gupta, R. S.; Mahmood, S.; Adeolu, M. (2013). A phylogenomic and molecular signature based approach for characterization of the phylum Spirochaetes and its major clades: proposal for a taxonomic revision of the phylum. Frontiers in Microbiology. 4., available online at https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00217
* Margos, G.; Marosevic, D.; Cutler, S.; Derdakova, M.; Diuk-Wasser, M.; Emler, S.; Fish, D.; Gray, J.; Hunfeldt, K.-P.; Jaulhac, B.; Kahl, O.; Kovalev, S.; Kraiczy, P.; Lane, R. S.; Lienhard, R.; Lindgren, P. E.; Ogden, N.; Ornstein, K.; Rupprecht, T.; Schwartz, I.; Sing, A.; Straubinger, R. K.; Strle, F.; Voordouw, M.; Rizzoli, A.; Stevenson, B.; Fingerle, V. (2017). There is inadequate evidence to support the division of the genus Borrelia. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 67(4): 1081-1084. 
* Barbour, A. G.; Adeolu, M.; Gupta, R. S. (2017). Division of the genus Borrelia into two genera (corresponding to Lyme disease and relapsing fever groups) reflects their genetic and phenotypic distinctiveness and will lead to a better understanding of these two groups of microbes (Margos et al. (2016) There is inadequate evidence to support the division of the genus Borrelia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.001717). International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 67(6): 2058-2067.
Since the ramifications are somewhat wide ranging (and also subject to some dispute as noted above), (and I am also a bit busy with other things at present) I have not changed the current article text but may do in the future, or others are welcome to do so. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: yes I had noticed that as well. Since the name appears to be a bit controversial for now, I haven't bothered changing it. I'm agnostic on whether we should change article titles and text to be strictly in line with taxonomic authorities, or leave them as the most common name and just note the name change in the text. Similar examples are Vibrio fischeri (which we have at the taxonomically correct, but controversial name), Clostridium difficile (moved to Clostridioides but not commonly called as such), and Propionibacterium acnes (similar situation to V. fischerii). Maybe at some point we should have a discussion at WT:MICRO about it. Or maybe folks will just continue to boldly change titles and text as they see fit. Either way, thanks for bringing this up! If you decide you want to make the changes and need a hand, let me know! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the comment. BTW the present page name would not need to change since the genus Borrelia still exists as well as the new one Borreliella which contains the Lyme-producing subset of species, the others remaining in Borrelia. So Borreliella would need a new page of its own, with the relevant species moved there (the moved species will indeed require new names + pages, and thus need redirects from current pages under their old names - a reason why the work is somewhat non-trivial). Cheers - TonyTony 1212 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic changes for Borrelia, 2014 onwards 

message: - why? Almost all of that is valid and well sourced content on the subject of microbiology. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All changes were justified in the history. The changes removed content that wasn't relevant to Lyme disease microbiology, was unsubstantiated, or was outright false. Important to be cautious of non-human studies and use reliable secondary sources. WP:MEDPRI ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass removals

message: There's a lot of talk in the chronic Lyme disease community about an alleged "spore form" or "cyst form" of Borrelia that supposedly may be resistant to the usual antibiotics (possibly other forms too, such as cell-wall deficient forms), and people might check this page looking for information about whether that's true or not.  It might be useful to have a section mentioning this and saying what the current consensus is about whether there is any such form or not (I'm not sure, off-hand).  At the moment, whether or not Borrelia does have any variant forms seems not to be mentioned on this page, and Borrelia_burgdorferi seems to make only one brief mention of "cystic forms" which appears to be unsourced, added by Mic Goodwill.  (It might be from "Colony formation and morphology in Borrelia burgdorferi".)  Wombat140 (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good review of the subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922218/ and this book chapter. I removed the part about cystic forms from the other article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuck it in.  Wombat140 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged spore/cyst form