Talk:Biofilm

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huntwc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Bacterial lawn for the origins of this page. Jmeppley 21:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

local air pollution

From footnote 3, "Kim Lewis. Research Description -- works on antibiotic resistance and drug discovery, persister cells, and unculturable bacteria." (identical parts in bold):

Persisters are not mutants, but phenotypic variants of the wild type. We developed a method to isolate persisters and obtained their gene profile, which points to a dormancy program that is turned on in these cells (Keren et al., 2004). We find that proteins known as “toxins” that form toxin/antitoxin modules participate in persister formation. “Toxins” appear to be the exact opposite of what their name suggests, they reversibly block important processes such as translation, protecting the cell from bactericidal antibiotics that are ineffective against inactive targets.

From this article:

Persisters are not mutants, but phenotypic variants of the wild type. He developed a method to isolate persisters and obtained their gene profile, which pointed to a dormancy program that is turned on in these cells. He found that proteins known as “toxins” forming toxin/antitoxin modules are largely responsible for persister formation. “Toxins” appear to be the exact opposite of what their name suggests, they reversibly block important processes such as translation, protecting the cell from bactericidal antibiotics that are ineffective against inactive targets.

Originalname37 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

--

There are other sections that I deleted as they just pasted the information in from an article, including "we".

Pejhman (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2014 (AEST)

Could someone mention stromatolites? I have little knowledge as I only learnt about them watching "Earth", that BBC documentary with a scotsman. --Squidonius (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was about to edit Bacterial_mat to include Media:Bacteria mats near Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone-750px.JPG instead of the link to the nonfree image, but I noticed that most of the limited content available in the Bacterial mat article is superceeded by this Biofilm article. I don't think any content actually needs to be integrated into this article, a simple redirect on the Bacterial mat page will do. Thoughts? Deculpep (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Redirect will do.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
• Right; simply redirect Bacterial_mat to the Biofilm article --Bogelund (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Hmmmm,. this appears not to have been done. Fixed now. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I started an article Microbial mat to support articles a group of are working on relating to evolution in the Ediacaran and Cambrian periods. The list of resources at Talk:Microbial mat will give you some idea of the way we're going. Microbial mats feature in or should feature in at least Cambrian substrate revolution, Cambrian explosion and Ediacaran biota.

Now I've found Biofilm and my impression is that a microbial mat is simply a biofilm that's large enough to a see with the naked eye. I suggest we need to sort out a division of labour between articles. Topics to be allocated to articles include:

• How they form from small beginings (currently described in Biofilm).
• Typical" structure and wide range of variation, depending on food and energy resources available.
• Where they form. Hostile environments.
• Evolutionary history, including origins over 3000 MYA and Cambrian substrate revolution about 505 MYA.
• Evolutionary importance, both as a promoter of and a constraint on the evolution of more complex organisms.
• Positive and negative impacts on humans - diseases; actual or potential industrial applications.

Philcha (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a RS that states they are essentially the same thing? If we merge them, I support merging them under biofilm, which is a more recognized term. II | (t - c) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re whether the same, see the sources listed at Talk:Microbial mat.

I did not propose merging the articles - my phrase "division of labour between articles" implies the existence of separate articles.

In fact I would strongly recommend keeping the evolution-related aspects in a separate article, since: adding a time dimension extending over more than 3000 MY is likely to cause a lot of content to be added; a lot of this is likely to be about whether one can be sure that various features in rocks are evidence that a microbial mat was present 00s or 000s of MYA, or about whether such evidence tells us much about the composition and functioning of the mat; there seems to be quite a lot of research going on at present about mats that did not build stromatolites; and that will just be the starting point for analysis of reciprocal influences between mats and the evolution of animals (see e.g. Cambrian substrate revolution, on which work has only recently started. Philcha (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The talk page lists a lot of sources -- I take that as a yes, some of these sources do equate the two? You've noticed that there is a merge tag on this article, yes? I got bacterial and microbial mat confused, sorry. Personally, I don't think we need another article on this same topic, but since you appear to be interested and well-versed on the evolutionary aspects, microbial mats could be a subarticle of this perhaps titled "Biofilms in evolution". II | (t - c) 09:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Philcha, nor any of the sources he listed, proposed "merging" the two articles. Some people may describe a microbial mat as a biofilm; I've no interest in getting involved in semantic warfare. But microbial mats demark at most a very small subset of "biofilms", and are considered as a separate entity in plenty of cases - take the ones listed by Philcha for starters and multiply by a few hundred. They DEFINITELY deserve their own article; there's so much to be said about evolution, fossil record, taphonomy, disappearance, relation to stromatolites, and more, not to mention talk of contemporaneous microbialites! With the exception of the first, all of the questions raised by Philcha have an answer that's specific to Microbial mats. Once that article is written, I suspect there'll be plenty of scope for a summary section in this article. The only difficulty is where to mention the formation of a colony; I guess that it could easily be copied from this article to microbial mat, as it's not overly long or complicated. That's probably much simpler than copying it to a template and transcluding it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why this is even up for discussion, they are by definition two different things. A biofilm has to be adhered to a surface, a bacterial mat does not. It may not sound much, but it is a huge difference. When a biofilm detaches from a surface the cells begin to revert back to a planktonic mode of growth. Many biofilms are large enough to see with the naked eye, so that definition is flawed. Keep both pages. --137.43.148.171 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There should be two different pages for biofilms and microbial mats, although by definition a microbial mat is a type of biofilm. In response to the previous post, I have clarified in the article that a biofilm is distinguished by microbial adhesion, and this may include cell-cell (or cell-matrix) contacts as well as adhesion to a surface. However, the study of biofilm microbiology and the evolution of microbial mats from Ediacaran and Cambrian periods are very different topics. Perhaps a reciprocal link from each of the two articles to one another would be the best solution?JoeHarrisonUW (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the final sentence because it does not make sense, unlike the rest of the article.

"The bacterial strains identification of the biofilms isolated from the dental plaque or from the biofilms attached to the surfaces of some dental alloys, impression materials, dental implants, restorative and cement materials play an essential role concerning the biofilms establishment dynamics towards the physical-chemical properties of the materials which biofilms are attached to."

It appears to be copied directly from the translated abstract of the journal article referenced.

While the surface properties of the substrate may well affect the dynamics of biofilm establishment, the identification of the strains involved does not actually play a role in this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here are some additional aspects that can be considered for adding to the article:

• Biofilms are frequently studied in bacillus subtilis growing on an agar surface in a petri dish. Reference

• Biofilms are structured and sometimes stable enough that they can be considered a unique and cladistic multicellular organism, particularly when they contain cells of one species.

• Biofilms are characteristically non-wetting to their substrate, more so than any other natural structure. Reference

• Biofilms usually are structured into layers, with each layer containing a specialized cell type, even when all cells are of a single species.

• Biofilms usually contain a fixed but growing structure of liquid-conducting tubules or streamers whose beautiful patterns can be seen easily in microscopic movies. Reference Reference Reference Reference

• Biofilms are sometimes used to deliver phage therapy.

David Spector (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am currently working on adding a new section to this page title Biofilms in the food industry. This will be added to the page below the biofilms in medicine section.mI am describing how biofilms affect food and food processing and the impacts biofilms can have. I plan to make changes to the page between April 5 and April 8. Huntwc (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biofilm. 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/20141213132152/http://www.origalys.com/products/biofilm-monitor-legionella-risk-management to http://www.origalys.com/products/biofilm-monitor-legionella-risk-management

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biofilm. 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/20080622002657/http://www.cs.montana.edu/ross/personal/intro-biofilms-s3.htm to http://www.cs.montana.edu/ross/personal/intro-biofilms-s3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I clicked on the first reference and received an error message.Student100000 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest putting the properties of biofilms before the section on its formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student100000 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the image showing mature biofilm structure (with VBNC cells etc.) has a typo in the legend, in which persister cells are labeled "perister cells".

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachel Liang0512 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jason.DeLaCruz1313 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply