Talk:Bacterial conjugation

Sexduction Vs. Conjugation

Sexduction is not the same as Conjugation why when you search for sexduction it redirects to conjugation. sexduction is another proccess in bacteria resulting F-prime factor. It happens when an abnormal crossing over occures in Integrated F-Factor in genome resulting a F-factor with additional genes called F-prime factor

• • Question: so conjugation does not necessarily involve F-factor, but sexduction does?**

75.72.195.217 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)yioe

---

Sexual, "sex pili"

Biology, 6th edition, by Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece, uses the term "sex pilus" for the pilus involved in bacterial conjugation.

The DNA donor, referred to informally as the "male," uses appendages called sex pili to attach to the DNA recipient, the "female."

They even state outright that it's sexual...

Conjugation is the direct transfer of genetic material between two bacterial cells that are temporarily joined. This process, the bacterial version of sex, has been studied most extensively in E. coli.

I'm not saying this is definitive, but shouldn't the statement about it not being sexual at least have a specific source, preferably one that can be followed (i.e. a website)? XarBiogeek (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point but I think that it is fine at the moment. It is not sex in the classical definition because 1) they do not contribute equally 2) it doesn't immediately make a new individual 3) even the Campbell books says that it is "the bacterial version of sex." I interpret this as it is the equivalent but not the same. While both sex and bacterial conjugation will lead to a greater genetic diversity, they are not the same. Anyway, I'm not particularly an expert on this but that's my two cents! Ucla1989 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sex does not always involve equal contribution (for example, in cases of chromosomal disorders or species in which XO is male rather than XY). Additionally, Sex states "In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into male and female reproductive roles."– that is, not saying that it expressly involves the development of a new individual or even anything beyond mixing and combining genetic information (I am using "sex" as distinct from "sexual reproduction"). I don't mean to say that Bacterial Conjugation is sexual, but merely to point out that all the information surrounding it suggests that it is so, such that clarification to the contrary needs a strong reference. ~XarBioGeek ^(talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no reference, but I worked in the conjugation field and am an author on one of the cited works. If I understand XarBiogeek's last comment, we are agreed that conjugation is not a form of sexual reproduction and the sticking point is the idea that the conjugative process is still sex. This is a good point intelligently made. I never liked the idea of conjugation as sex for a variety of reasons, but chief among them is evolutionary. In the most extreme example, the F plasmid, the episome is a true parasite that confers no advantage to the host and several disadvantages, including susceptibility to the M13 phage. In this case, at least, it may be more accurate to think of the conjugative plasmid as a collection of selfish genes (appologies to Richard Dawkins) in the model of a DNA virus. In this light, conjugation is a form of parasitism or symbiosis, the plasmid is something like a minimal organism, and the process is no more sex than is a viral infection. Here I grant that my personal definition of organism is a little more broad that most, but it got that way from working on these very systems. Though I personally conclude that conjugation is not sex, I also wonder whether or not this sex/not sex distinction is even valid in the first place. Sex may belong in the same category of difficult-to-define scientific terms as species, life, and planet. 69.134.122.144 (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way this argument should be cleared up in the article. The introduction states it is not sexual, then later in the mechanism several sexual references are made (for example: 'mating signal', 'mating experiments'). This is seems contradictory. My opinion on whether this is reproduction or not are irrelevant but the article should maintain one point of view, or explain the debate. Jebus989 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'mating' terms are unfortunate and confusing, but they entered the lexicon before conjugation was understood to be non-sexual. Further confusion is added by common reference to donor or recipient status as the 'sex' or 'gender' of the bacteria, which is ridiculous on several levels. I believe the terms must be left in the article, as they are the accepted nomenclature, but some explanation may be necessary. Would anyone like to suggest appropriate references? They may be fairly old. Brroga (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, look at Babic et. al. in Science Mar. 2008. Booyah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.79.232 (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interrupted Mating Experiment

I think the Interrupted Mating Experiment at the end should be credited. Hayes, I believe, but I'm not sure. 209.250.215.32 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!

Bacterial Conjugation is NOT sexual!!!--ZZ 02:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's actually parasexual.

–If you have a source, you should include that in the article... It doesn't mention anything about it being "parasexual". Currently, a search for "parasexual" redirects to "Paraphilia", which is not incredibly helpful on this topic. I would recommend defining "parasexual", or linking and creating another article on parasexuality. XarBiogeek (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

School Work

This site gave me lots of information towards a science project, thank you!!!...best site ever........202.134.173.126 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Different user, I need more info!

Peer-to-peer bacteria. Way cool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.100.20.29 (talk) 00:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

shame on you... but I can't say I haven't done the same... haha Ucla1989 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage in horizontal gene transfer section

Is just an over-simplified repeat of the mechanism section + intro? should be removed or rewritten. Jebus989 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, it looks like the section was added to point out possible utility for genetic engineering, but the writing is unclear. Editing now. Brroga (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does "exconjugant" redirect here?

What does it mean? 86.130.41.222 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Exconjugant is another name for transconjugant Caledonia athome (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)