Talk:Salmonella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gram-negative

Whoever keeps reverting my edits on 'gram-negative'... Please do not just revert the edit but tell us why being Gram-negative is important! If it is not an indication that the bug will cause illness, what is the significance? Tell me why I need to know that it is "Gram-negative"!

Gram staining is the primary classification used in microbiology. It literally describes the result of a particular staining procedure, but the implications explain two intrinsic physiologically lineages within eubacteria.

By stating that salmonella are gram negative we are summarrizing that it has a lipopolysaccharide outer membrane, a periplasmic space, a thin peptidoglycan layer and an inner membrane. Gram postive prokaryotes have only one membrane and a very thick peptidoglycan cell wall. Gram negatives also have intrinsic resistance to much older forms of antibiotics like the original pennicillins.

Neither gram type of bacteria is more inclined to cause illness than the other. Virulent gram positives include: Bacillus anthracis(Anthrax), Staphylococcus aureus(maybe the deadliest), Steptococcus sp., and all the Clostridia(Botulism, Tetanus, and C. difficile), etc. Gram negative virulent bacteria include: E.coli(the bad kind not the normal kind), Yersinia pestis(The Bubonic plague), Salmonella sp. , Vibrio cholerae(Cholera, and the fastest swimming bacteria!), etc.

Every bacteria page states the gram type just like every politician page states their party. There is great importance to being gram negative or not, but the salmonella page is not the one to try and tackle the issues. Contact me to discuss further.... Adenosine | Talk 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

We need to edit these articles so that they can be understood by someone who does not have two years in med school already.

Could someone comment on how Salmonella became present in eggs only in the 20th century?

No, when you find out, could you add your findings (and the sources) to this page? Thank you. JFW | T@lk 10:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, somebody made the discovery that chickens grow larger if fed lots of antibiotics. This had the unfortunate effect that some strains of salmonella became resistant, and these more harmful strains became endemic.

Ironically, food poisoning from salmonella is due to modern food preparation methods. It used to be that most people were resistant to salmonella, especially those living in poverty — less sanitary preparation results in more bacteria being ingested. The human immune system is well equipped to deal with regular infection by a particular organism, but now that salmonella is rarely found in food, it causes severe reactions when encountered. Undercooked chicken and eggs are not harmful if eaten regularly. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 07:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually (according to some Dietary groups, like primal diet group) it seem that salmonella grows especially in food AFTER it has been cooked and then left for the night, and not eaten straight away. So it might be that more and more people changed their habits in the 20th century. For example in Italy people use to eat raw eggs often, just drinking them. That had a special expression, it was called "sucking eggs". The current generation do it very very rarely.

I added the bit on Reiter's syndrome, I thought it would be potentially important information here.. Reiter's syndrome mentions salmonella, as does its external link. I heard about Reiter's syndrome as a consequence of salmonella last night on Discovery Health Channel (I think). --AshyRaccoon 21:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I came to this page looking for info about the consequences of a salmonella infection, and to find out which places in the world you can safely , say, eat raw eggs... More non-med info would be nice!

[edit] harry Potter

erm...why is harry potter in the 'see also' section?!! I assume it's vandalism! 81.109.158.208 11:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)