Talk:Plasmodium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plasmodium was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 26, 2008

	Biology Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Topics for discussion 2 Invalid links to this article 3 Updates 4 Notes 5 Species listing notes 6 Dubious species 7 Host species listing 8 Talk 9 Article length 10 Evolution Section 11 GA Candidacy 12 GA Review April 2008 13 Changes

[edit] Topics for discussion

Regarding vaccination: is it at all possible to vaccinate against protozoa? --Eequor 14:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good question. There are a LOT of people working on precisely this. The current (2007) answer is 'No' but this may change in the future.

A note for all potential editors. More than four species infect humans. This is a very common textbook error. I don't know why this mistake is reiterated in textbooks as the literature is clear on this point. Admittedly many of these cases have been published in journals with low citation index which it seems the writers of general medical text books don't seem to read. I have met people who have been infected with species other than the usual four so I can personally assure any readers of this page that the textbooks are wrong here.

[edit] Invalid links to this article

There are some invalid links to this article because "plasmodium" also has another meaning in biology, not only the malaria parasite. It probably needs some good thinking to define the other meaning, but check for example links from Slime mould and Myxozoa. Taka 2 July 2005 16:33 (UTC) Note: the correct spelling of 'mould' is 'mould' and not 'mold'. The editor who did this looks like a newbie. If this is correct I would be grateful if they could practice in the sandbox instead of the article. Thanks in advance. DrMicro

[edit] Updates

There should probably be a seperate article devoted to that definition of plasmodium, as it refers to a stage in a slime mould's lifecycle and this article seems to be categorized more as an article about a specific genus in taxonomy, rather than a general definition of a word. --Ethidiumbromide 16:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

141.250.66.61 10:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Luis141.250.66.61 10:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that in Dec 2007 this pages was vandelised. Users of this page might find it helpful; to look at pages before this date also. I will get around to fixing this when I have a few minutes to do so. DrMicro

[edit] Notes

A few - very few - of the species listed here may be invalid. It is difficult to get an up to date listing of all the currently recognised species but the listing here combined with the notes should be reasonably trustworthy. DrMicro 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

P. acuminatum and P. adunyinkai have been difficult to confirm as species and may not be valid species. DrMicro 17:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 171 species listed in the taxobox. 100 have been given subgenera. DrMicro 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of another species: P. lacertiliae. Also P. diminutivum is proving difficult to verify and should for the present be regarded as a dubious entry in the taxonomy. DrMicro

Addition of another species: P. beltrani. Two more entered into the subgenera listing. P. torrealbai is proving difficult to verify and may be incorrect.

Current listing: 173 species with 4 that should be regarded as dubious entries. Some listed in the taxobox are likely to be names that have now been replaced. Accordingly the valid species name listing is probably less than the 173 given here. Subgenera have been identified for 102 and all of these can be regarded as valid species - at least until molecular methods clarify (or confuse) the taxonomic position further. DrMicro

A number of new host species have been added under the avian malarias. These will be wikified when I can get around to it. Any help here is welcome. Also three additional species have been added to the taxobox. One species has been deleted from the subgenera listing and three added. This is virtually the entire list of currently recognised species.

Some of the species listed may need to be deleted as being invalid later but since this is now quite a large page it might be better to list the species to be deleted on this discussion page and delete several of them at one time as this is more sparing of Wikipedias servers. DrMicro

I think this page bar further minor edits, addition of the diagnostic criteria for the remaining subgenera, listing of the outstanding species by subgenus and inclusion or deletion of species is probably complete enough to be useful as a reference. Additional details will be located under the link to each species. Almost every species listed here has a vertebrate host listed. It may be worth listing the invertebrate hosts here or perhaps it may be better to do so under the species description instead. References and updates of course will always be welcome.

The molecular biology of malaria is largely known because of work on a single species - Plasmodium falciparum - and much of this may not be applicable to other species so I would suggest filing additional material relating to this under a seperate page.

Currently the dubious 'species' listed here are: P. acuminatum, P. adunyinkai, P. diminutivum and P. torrealbai. It seems likely that at least one or two given more may also be dubious. If anyone can confirm or refute these doubts thier input would be most welcome. DrMicro 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

P. diminutivum having found a decent reference to it can now be taken off the dubious list. DrMicro 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if Plasmodium schweitzi is a valid species, or just a typing error of Plasmodium schwetzi 141.250.66.61 10:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Luis141.250.66.61 10:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Luis. This was a typo on my part. If this is in the taxobox I will fix it when I get round to doing a clean up of the taxobox - which I will do shortly. I have been defering this until I have (1) a little more time and (2) have checked a few more of the species validity. I have another three that seem likely to be valid and there are a few there that should now be deleted. If this typo occurs anywhere else on the article please feel free to fix it. Im defering editing the taxobox until I have checked these species because as it is currently designed it requires the entire page to be backed up by the servers. The article weights in at ~45 kiliobyes at the minute so at a small risk of being misleading for a short time I trying to spare the servers. If you or anyone else wants to clean up the species list please feel free to do so. I would be grateful if you do if you could list the deleted ones here just in case one or other might actually be valid. DrMicro

Removal of incorrect species: Garnia gonatodi is incorrectly been called here Plasmodium gonatodi. The species was described by Telford in 1970 but has sometimes been refered to as a 'Plasmodium' species. DrMicro 19:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium wasielewski and Plasmodium subpraecox are now regarded as synonoms for Plasmodium relictum. I have included this point in the notes so a seperate species unnecessary. DrMicro 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium praecox is now also regarded as synonoms for Plasmodium relictum. It has been delected from the species listing. DrMicro 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium oti is now regrded as the same species as Plasmodium hexamerium. P. hexamerium is the prefered name for this species so I am deleting Plasmodium oti from the listing. DrMicro 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Species listing notes

Plasmodium (Novyella) ashfordi - a new species that has just been described. I will update the article later. DrMicro

Update on the status of P. acuminatum, P. adunyinkai, P. diminutivum and P. torrealbai.

The status of Plasmodium acuminatum remains dubious. I think this was a mistake on my part and I am deleting this from the listing here.

Plasmodium adunyinkai I have since learned belongs to the Sauramoeba subgenus so this seems a valid species.

Plasmodium torrealbai was described in 1957 by J. V. Scorza and C. Dagert in an Anolis lizard found in Venezuela. The paper describing it is in Spanish and was not that easy to track down until recently.

Accordingly I am going to update the species listing with: Plasmodium ashfordi,Plasmodium adunyinkai and Plasmodium torrealbai; and to delete Plasmodium acuminatum from the list. I will also update the subgenera listings.

Curently 173 species are listed here with 104 with subgenera. There may be a few - probably less < 10 - remaining species that are not here yet but this listing can be regarded as fairly complete. DrMicro 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another species has been added - P. vassali - described in 1905. There may be some overlap with the other mammalian species - this requires DNA clarification. In the interim it has been described as a valid spcies and for this reason has been treated as such here. DrMicro 14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Having come across a few more species these have been added to the listings. DrMicro 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium smirnovi looks very dubious to me at the minute. As I cannot find a single reliable reference to this species I am deleting it.DrMicro 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found a new list of validated species which I am now adding to the list. DrMicro

The current listing is now 212 species. DrMicro

Im having doubts about Plasmodium iganae. Will contibue to check this. DrMicro 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium simondi: I suspect this has been reclassified as a Leukocytozoon species.

Plasmodium ratufae: this is currently regarded as a species of Hepatocystis.

Im removing three species because they have been reclassified as Hepatocystis. All recalssified species will be listed at the bottom of the main page.

Plasmodium necatrix: this species looks dubious at the minute. Assuming it is incorrect there are 208 species in the list presently. This number is likely to continue to vary.

Four additional species have now been added bringing the total to 212 in all.

Plasmodium carinii is incorrect (as I suspected earlier). It has been deleted. Total is now 211 species. DrMicro 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium clelandi looks dubious DrMicro 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Plasmodium bastianelli is not a valid species but rather a subspecies of Plasmodium cynomogli. It has been deleted. DrMicro 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Plasmodium gonatodi *again*. I should have read my own notes above this. DrMicro 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Further editing: Another species has been added - Plasmodium jiangi. Running total is 209. An additional 10 species has very recently been described and I will try to add these shortly. DrMicro 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am virtually certain that Plasmodium simondi has been reclassifed as Leukocytozoon simondi - a major bird parasite. I am deleting the Plasmodium entry. DrMicro 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Three new species have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMicro (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious species

I have been through the current listing of species. All the species given are mentioned in the scientific literature but a number may have been reclassifed into different genera. Any species with a link to its own page can be regarded as currently valid. There are a number of species i havent yet got around to creating pages for: most of these species are valid. I going to post a list of those most likely to be dubious in this section. If anyone can clarify their status I would be most grateful. DrMicro.

There are currently 16 species on this list.

• Plasmodium acuminatum
• Plasmodium adunyinkai
• Plasmodium anomaluri
• Plasmodium bowiei
• Plasmodium brasiliense
• Plasmodium chalcidi
• Plasmodium clelandi - may be a Haemogregarina species
• Plasmodium divergens - may be a Babesia species
• Plasmodium fabesia
• Plasmodium iguanae - may be a Lainsonia species
• Plasmodium landauae - may be a Schellackia species
• Plasmodium majus
• Plasmodium murinus
• Plasmodium necatrix
• Plasmodium uluguruense
• Plasmodium uncinatum

[edit] Host species listing

As no guide lines currently exist for this purpose I have been using the following method: vertebrate host species are listed in alphabetical order of thier official or binomial name. The link to the species page (when it exists) is provided only on the official name. The official names should be unique and in this way confusion between host species should be reduced.

For the invertebrate vectors I have first grouped the species by genus and then within this section by species and listed the parasites they can carry.

While this usage is inconsistent it is fairly typical of many parasitology books and makes sense to the users of this data. For this reason I have used it here and would recommend that this continued to be used. DrMicro 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

Thanks Nulzilla for removing that silly vandalism. DrMicro

Dear DrMico, The page you have constructed here from the old Plasmodium page is one of the most extensive reviews of the taxonomy of the genus that I have seen, I am very pleased to see it here. I came across it this page while researching for a similar review. I would be grateful to have some direct contact with you as I would like to discuss the content of the page and perhaps sufficient citations to be able to refer to some the material in my review. I have registered with Wikipedia so that you can contact me directly Looking forward to hearing from you Zmartine 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have tried your email as given and it does not appear to work. DrMicro

--> I have fixed the email error, please try again. Thanks. Zmartine 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the subspecies and host parasite listings. These are useful information to those working with malaria. I am not clear as to why they were deleted some time ago so I presume this was an editing error. DrMicro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.58.241 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

This article now confortably exceeds the recommended length for a Wikipedia article. It is likely to become even longer. Given that this is a primary reference page for Plasmodium it is arguable that it is better not broken up unless there are technical reasons to do so. DrMicro 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution Section

If there is an evolution section then some mention of the connection between malaria parasites and photosynthestic organisms should be made. The parasite contains an organelle, the apicoplast, which is analogous to the chloroplast of photosynthetic organisms. Analysis of the genome of this organelle and nuclear genes suggests that the dinoflagellates (consisting of free-living and parasitic forms) are the closest relatives of the apicomplexans. Urselius 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. On my (already overlong) ToDo list is a paper on the mitochondria of these organisms. I will add something in here and come back to later.

[edit] GA Candidacy

I don't have time to go through this article in detail at the current moment, but I can say that the article will be way too listy to pass in its current form. All the extensive lists should be placed in separate list articles with links to them here. Hope this will help. DJLayton4 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review April 2008

Hello. After reviewing this article, I have made the decision to fail the article. Here are the reasons:

• There is some problems with how well the article is written. Its prose is a little difficult to understand in some areas. I understand that it's a scientific article, but its still not a reason for this article not to flow smoothly.
• The introduction is the area located immediately above the table of contents. You should not have a second "introduction" section below the table of contents.
• Evolution of the genus should really be discussed separately from the plasmodium life cycle. That section is a little bit difficult to follow. If you're going to talk about the life cycle of species in the genera, then write that. If you're talking about the evolution of the genus, then talk about that. But I think its entirely possible to discuss one without the other as combining into the same section leads to difficulty in understanding.
• The main problem with this article ever reaching good article status is the fact that it is almost all list. Lists of species by subgenera, list of species that infect humans, list of species that infect primates, etc. etc. A good article (by WP:GA criteria) is not composed of lists. If your goal is to turn this article into a good article or into a featured article, then I would suggest that you spin off all/some of these lists into separate articles. For example, create a new article entitled "List of Plasmodium by subgenera", list of Plasmodium that infect humans", etc. and transfer these lists into those articles. Then you can simply link to these lists from within this article. Good articles need to be composed mostly of prose, so excessive lists and tables within the article are discouraged.
• "Notes" sections within an article are discouraged. If present, they should generally be located at the end of an article. If you decide to spin your long lists off into separate article (which is highly encourage you to do) then the associated notes can be transferred to the end of those articles as well.
• I transformed your longest list into a multi-column list. These are in general easier to read as less scrolling is required.
• Your references look good and appear to be appropriately formated and adequately used throughout the article.

Let me know if you have any additional questions. will381796 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Introduction has been moved.

Some sub sections have been reorganised.

Consideration is being given to splitting this into (probably) 4 articles: general and then for each species group. The bird and reptile groups may be better together as from the phylogenetics these appear to be closely related and future revisions will probably groups these as a new genus or higher taxonomic clade. The primate species seem to form natural grouping as do the non primate mammals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.121.108 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The molecular biology section can probably be moved out entirely. Almost all the work in this species has been done on P falciparum only and its appicability to other species except in the most general terms is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.121.108 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the changes recommended haves been carried out. The new pages all need work to bring them up to a useful standard. DrMicro (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)