Talk:Lactobacillus

message: I really think this article has a lot of things that need to be fixed, including but not limited to the reliability of sources, the structure of this article, and lots of unreferenced content, as well as lots of important missing information. I would really appreciate if anyone could help raise this article to at least a C-class rating :)
=== Reliability of sources and Unreferenced content ===
This article really needs some more reliable sources to prove the information on it. Firstly, some claims such as the dental caries thing, does not have any sources that prove it. The source being used simply states a hypothesis, and is not sufficient to prove the effects of Lactobacillus on teeth. There are no sources about the metabolism of the bacteria as well.
    I provided an additional citation for this and removed the 'dubious' tag. CameronNemo (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article seriously needs to be improved 

message: This article really needs some more reliable sources to prove the information on it. Firstly, some claims such as the dental caries thing, does not have any sources that prove it. The source being used simply states a hypothesis, and is not sufficient to prove the effects of Lactobacillus on teeth. There are no sources about the metabolism of the bacteria as well.
    I provided an additional citation for this and removed the 'dubious' tag. CameronNemo (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources and Unreferenced content 

message: I think that the structure of the article seriously needs to be fixed. It is lacking essential information. The sections list things that are very specific, and often are not the most important. Look at E. coli's page, which itself is being graded as a Good Article. Its structure is clear, the general topics are mentioned and the article then zooms in to the more specific topics. Lots of general information e.g. its biochemistry and its genetics, are missing from this article. Some sections such as taxonomy and metabolism need some serious fixing and expansion.
Fazbear7891 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of this article 

message: Isn't lactose a disaccharide? The article refers to it as a monosaccharide. Frankg 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Recent literature in PUBMED shows that Lactobacilli in fact reduce the prevalence of the organisms that cause dental carries.
[] See also references therein. The association is thus out of date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Association of Lactobacillus with dental carries in lead is overstated

message: I removed a reference to "sponge" as a synonym for sourdough starter.  In my limited baking experience, sponge refers to a preparation of commercial yeast, flour, and water prepared about a day in advance of the main part of the dough.  A sourdough starter, on the other hand, consists of wild yeast and bacteria, and may be fed and maintained for years or even centuries.  -- Coneslayer 21:59, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
I know of at least one major sourdough producer that refers to their starter as "the mother sponge." I would argue that either term is acceptable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.37.86.7 (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starter vs. sponge 

message: I guess lactobacilli are also important in cheese production but it is not mentioned. Should we insert it? --Araks 05:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheese production 

message: someone should add something about LGG to this page, since it is one of the most widely known and commercially employed Lactobacillus. There should also be a disambiguation page for LGG.
Yoshm 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGG 

message: In the Curing (food preservation) wiki, it says that lactobacilli come to the fore once any malevolent germs are killed off by osmosis - the "bad guys" lose water due to the high salt concentration outside their cell membranes. Why do the lactobacilli manage to prosper under these same conditions? Can the salt pass through their cell membrane? Does their plasma have a high salt concentration anyway?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.97.229 (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either here or in the Sourdough article a couple of the Lacto' species' salt-tolerance levels are mentioned.  Environmental salinity seems to play a huge part on gut flora's specific makeup in every environment and all species...at least all the ones with fermenting guts.  Mccabem (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Resistance to osmosis?

message: Citation #5 on the page is incorrect. It links to a source on saccharomyces, but the paper makes no mention to of Lactobacillus. I suggest we remove that section of the article or find the actual article it references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.22 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect citation in regards to cancer activity 

message: Clinical content has been added supported by MEDR sources. I have therefore added the appropriate med templates. Best Regards,
:Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinical content

message: This was commented out of the Human health claim. I don't believe that these old primary sources can support such an emphatic biomedical claim, so I'm dumping them here in the hope that one day a secondary source will give us something to work on.
--RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human health claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lactobacillus. 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/20070202132806/http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/l/lactobacillus.html to http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/l/lactobacillus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202132806/http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/l/lactobacillus.html to http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/l/lactobacillus.html
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) 09:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reference 7 is a doctoral thesis, and cannot be used as the only reference to support a statement on the use in human medicine. See WP:MEDRS. There should be little difficulty finding suitable ones. This was mentioned above a year ago--it needs to be fixed.   DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: MEDRS

message: The genus of Lactobacillus has been been reclassified in to 25 generahttps://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijsem.0.004107. Therefore, the nomenclature for most articles with (former) Lactobacillus species is now incorrect. 
Correcting this is a big task, and probably requires more Wiki experience than I have.
Kasros (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major taxonomy change in the genus Lactobacillus (April 2020) 

message: In the introduction, "In women of European ancestry, Lactobacillus species are normally a major part of the vaginal microbiota," in and in the vaginal microbiota segment
in around 70% of women, a Lactobacillus species is dominant, although that has been found to vary between American women of European origin and those of African origin, the latter group tending to have more diverse vaginal microbiota.
The sample was specifically American women from Virginia. Women of all groups have predominant Lactobacillus species in their vaginal microbiotas, even the same species of Lactobacillus makes the bulk of the microbiota, with something like a remaining 25-20% being more varied. Quoting another study:
The types of vaginal communities found in Japanese women were similar to those of Black and White women. As with White and Black women, most vaginal communities were dominated by lactobacilli, and only four species of Lactobacillus (Lactobacillus iners, Lactobacillus crispatus, Lactobacillus jensenii, and Lactobacillus gasseri) were commonly found. Communities dominated by multiple species of lactobacilli were common in Japanese and White women, but rare in Black women. The incidence, in Japanese women, of vaginal communities with several non-Lactobacillus species at moderately high frequencies was intermediate between Black women and White women." ("The Vaginal Bacterial Communities of Japanese Women Resemble Those of Women in Other Racial Groups," FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.133.22 (talk • contribs) 2020-05-29T23:58:25 (UTC)
: Going to look at this, partly because I need to evaluate where content goes after the 2020 split. My current, 5-minute impression is that the existing PMID 22746335 citation is not at fault here. It's a review that cites equally the Japanese paper and the American stuff. It also does NOT suggest that , but maybe one of its references does. --Artoria2e5 🌉 03:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can now report that this section, in fact, does not need to be moved as a result of Zheng. Still gotta think about how to fix it. Let me first forget about this xkcd comic. --Artoria2e5 🌉 05:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weirdly specific suggestion of European vaginal microbiota as somehow unique and ethnically inherent, intrinsic