Talk:Phage

message: * Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses
* the project is tagged inactive. 132.205.94.174 23:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject

message: I note the paragraph:
:One of the most prolific natural sources for phages is common seawater. There can be as many as 2.5x10^11 virions per liter (See references).
but the only refence to number given is the second one 2, but that only associates this with "natural waters", whatever that is supposed to refer to. Can anyone with access to the full Nature article clarify whether this was meant to be a particular fresh-water or sea-water source. On a (brief) search, I found this reference here that gave a figure fifty times lower in seawater, namely 5 x10^9 per litre. David Ruben  Talk  09:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History reference

message: I am a layman, and I was just wondering... do phages tend to eliminate all their target bacteria? Doesn't there exist a natural countermechanism that prevents that from happening?
Why I think there should exist a natural countermechanism: If phages tend to eliminate all their target bacteria, they themselves would perish, having no device that will replicate them (note I assume 1 class of phages kills 1 class bacteria). I'm speculating that, in general, bacteria should not fear being totally wiped out by phages that target them, because the reason that phages exist up to this time is because of the fact that they do not successfully lyse all their existing target bacteria out of existence.
Maybe that's why phages aren't used for treatment?
Or maybe they do lyse all bacteria they come in contact with, but that applies to a small locality, and the size of the earth containing similar bacteria is so large that it is practically impossible for these bacteria to be wiped out by their phages, So that from the point of view of phages, they have unlimited natural resource for reproduction/replication?
Or maybe phages actually do become extinct because of this exhaustion of their target bacterial resources (or remain dormant until a slightly similar bacteria comes along, then they go for the kill? That is if phages actually settle for a similar bacteria)
Maybe it's not right for me to assume that there SHOULD be a natural counter mechanism. Maybe phages do become extinct because of that "negative feedback" effect, or stay dormant for millions of years if they can survive the elements. 
:Phage definetly need bacteria to survive, and if phage succesfully killed all the bacteria around, they themselves would cease to exist, but isn't that the way of life? Phage are no difference to viruses that infect us, some of the truly deadly viruses are self limiting because they don't let any live long enough to pass them around (Ebola?), I believe phage are the same way. The most successful viruses don't kill anyone(cold?) or have no effect at all(the thousands of retroviruses in our genome!). Bacteria's only defense against phage is mutation, some microbes naturally will change in to  resistant strains. If you ever had the chance to work with phage you'd see some interesting stuff. Phage don't kill off entire plates of bacteria, they kill off small areas near where they are introduced. I don't know the mechanisms of there retarded virulence, but it is apparent. plus  on some virally killed areas, you may notice spots of bacteria that resisted the virus probably from natural mutation. On the counter point, a bad phage infection will shut down huge fermentation plants, some indefintely. I think phage have but one task, kill every bacteria they can, and do so quickly, it's nature and circumstance that keep the balance. Keep in mind the specificty of some phage. Lambda phage need to bind to maltose resecptors on bacteria, no maltose around = no receptors; and P1 phage require an F plasmid pilius to infect, the F plasimd itself being another form of infection. Anything that's too successful will probably just burn themselves out. Just my thought, anyone else?! Adenosine | Talk 08:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between phages and bacteria 

message: Considering phage is the shortened version of the true name of bacteriophage, shouldn't Phage redirect to Bacteriophage instead of the other way around? While updating the article I switched the redirection -- Serephine / talk - 15:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Phage?