Talk:Plasmodium

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in [1] duplicated at least in part material from [2]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----MER-C 12:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolution & Mechanism of Mosquito Infection and Transmission

Although the Evolution section of this article mentions how Plasmodium has evolved to infect the human liver and eventually red blood cells, it does not mention the evolutionary aspects and mechanism(s) that Plasmodium utilize to infect mosquitoes. User:Murtha.22 (User talk:Murtha.22)

Ok, so why not find some good sources on these aspects and extend the section with suitable references? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the feedback. I will look into this. --Murtha.22 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution - Mosquito Transmission

• The Evolution section of this article states that Plasmodium "survive and infect" mosquitoes. This may seem to imply that Plasmdodium decreases the fitness of mosquitoes. However, the mosquitoes that transmit Plasmdodium do not have a decreased fitness. This result indicates that vector fitness is an important selective agent shaping the evolution of Plasmodium. I have added a sentence and citation to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtha.22 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

couple suggestions to add to the article

• I would like to see more info on the influence of Plasmodium on the human genome. We know that humans and plasmodium have been evolving together for quite a while so, what are the resistance made by he human body to stand the illness? Some research have lead to the increase in Sickle gene in population where malaria is still endemic.
• Another suggestion is to improve the history behind the evolution of the parasite as of: how and when each type of Plasmodium ruled out many human lives.
• A last suggestion is to talk about the multiple attempts and weapons used to eradicate the disease ( malaria) caused by Plasmodium in humans; such as DDT and their effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daouda.1 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The first and third suggestions concern two other topics, Malaria and History of malaria, and would be best dealt with in those places (if not already covered), not in this article. The suggestion about the evolutionary history of the parasite is relevant but will require careful review of the peer-reviewed literature. Please make sure any additions are properly cited with full inline references as if you were writing a formal review paper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite?

Hi all! I'm currently going through and re-organizing/re-writing chunks of this article. Large chunks of this seem to be written in dense jargon, and some fairly controversial statements on taxonomy sit unreferenced. I'll try to separate my edits by topic so that if you see me doing something stupid you can easily revert the relevant edits and let me know and we can all chat here! Any thoughts, suggestions, or help are very welcome! Ajpolino (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the following text from the Life Cycle section:

The development from the hepatic stages to the erythrocytic stages has been obscure. In 2006 it was shown that the parasite buds off the hepatocytes in merosomes containing hundreds or thousands of merozoites. These merosomes have been subsequently shown to lodge in the pulmonary capillaries and to disintegrate there slowly over 48–72 hours releasing merozoites. Erythrocyte invasion is enhanced when blood flow is slow and the cells are tightly packed: both of these conditions are found in the alveolar capillaries.

While it is referenced, the two references are primary sources. The two papers were done in rodent-infecting strains (P. berghei in 2006 and P. yoelii in 2007) and there's no indication (that I know of) that these mechanisms are conserved across all Plasmodium species. Perhaps this kind of thing would be more appropriate at those specific articles. But really, it'd probably be best if we find a review covering this kind of thing. It definitely seems too specific for a section on the life cycle of the genus Plasmodium... Happy to talk about it if anyone objects... Ajpolino (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok! I tried to trim the tables out of the article that fit better at the list articles (Plasmodium species infecting birds, Plasmodium species infecting reptiles, etc.). This way we won't have to maintain tables at both locations and the tables can still be easily found (they're linked to at each subsection of this article). If anyone has concerns about this, let's talk about it here. Ajpolino (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plasmodium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Glad to see this article so much improved after many years.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: will need to mention resistance etc as in body. All else ok.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I've marked one place that seems to need a citation.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Seems ok, Earwig happy.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I know there's much more at Malaria, but all the same I'd expect to see at least brief coverage of attempts at control with drugs, and Plasmodium's history of resistance to those drugs. It is a strikingly adaptable (aka difficult) parasite and that does need to be discussed, along with its evolvability. Try googling for 'plasmodium evolvability'.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All from Commons and tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The last 4 images all have the same message (critters get malaria) and they stray into the refs. Perhaps group them into a multiple image or gallery. Um, now you've removed all 4 of them, so the (correct) message is now lost. We should have one of them, maybe the lizard, say, so the message is conveyed that this isn't a purely human parasite.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm satisfied that the article now meets the criteria and am happy to award it GA status.

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for starting the review! Since the last four images all showed more-or-less the same thing, I replaced them with some more varied ones. I can re-insert a multiple image of the critters if you prefer the old way. I'm looking for a ref for the statement you tagged. I've got a book in mind; will check the physical library tomorrow. I still haven't decided how to write a section on evolvability without it entirely focusing on the human parasites P. falciparum and P. vivax. Let me think about it for a few more days. Perhaps there's some literature out there on treating birds and lizards from the zoo veterinary crowd.

As long as I've got your attention on the page, any thoughts on ways the article could be improved in the future would be most welcome! Thanks again! Ajpolino (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

See my comment in the Images box above - we don't need all 4 (though it's an option) but we do need at least 1, and the lizard's caption says it well. Glad of progress and thought. The evolvability will surely be easiest with the falciparum/vivax evidence. And btw pings shouldn't be needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Reinserted the bird and lizard. Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, well, ok, we're jumping about very fast here.

Plasmodium sporozoites from a mosquito

I'd suggest using the sporozoites image too, next to the life-cycle section, which is certainly very brief indeed given its importance. The section needs to say enough to make it clear what the life-cycle involves and why in evolutionary terms the parasite should need two hosts.

Okay. Sorry, I tried to fix things in a rush yesterday and made a bit of a mess with the pictures.

I went through today and added a short paragraph on drug treatment and resistance. I also merged some of the lifecycle info that was presented both in the life cycle and vertebrate hosts section. Is that what you were imaginging as far as info on drugs/evolvability? I'm happy to add more.

I'll also add a bit to the life cycle section (including the sporozoite picture). Thanks again for the feedback! Ajpolino (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Much better.

• Why don't you add a brief word on the etymology (of the name Plasmodium) to the rather gloomy note on 'Terminology'? And rename it to 'Etymology'. In fact the terminological note could become a footnote really, it's far too prominent at the moment.

• Shouldn't all the subgenera be in italics?

• We should remove one of the two lists of Subgenera - I suggest we kill the one in the taxobox, it's no help to anybody and is less detailed than the one in the Taxonomy section.

• The Phylogeny at the moment is a bit of a despairing gesture, 'It's difficult'. Well, ok, but how do we know they are Haemosporida in the class Aconoidasida, phylum Apicomplexa then? When did these evolve (mya, geological periods)? What are the sister taxa? — A cladogram would help.

• The organisation/structure needs some work. Perhaps we should start with Description, but it's not a classical 'how to recognise this genus section' of that name, so I'm open to discussion; perhaps we should add a paragraph on exactly that at the start ('Plasmodium is hard to describe as it takes different forms ...'; and perhaps the Etymology/Terminology could become a small footnote in this section, which would place History at the end, makes more sense.)

• The next section ought really to be 'Evolution' with subsections 'Taxonomy' and 'Phylogeny'. Life-cycle can follow, with Hosts as a subsection, and Forms (sporozoite, merozoite, etc) as another subsection.

Guess the order is not so important. There is probably sufficient detail on forms for a basic overview article.

Agreed. There is currently an Apicomplexan life cycle article listing forms and definitions. Cleaning up and expanding it (and Apicomplexa) is on my to do list.

Took a pass at improving the phylogeny and taxonomy info, thoughts? Also, I'm happy to reorder the sections, though I'm unsure what to do with the host section. Not all of it fits nicely under "Lifecycle"; some seems to be more akin to an "Ecology and distribution" section... I'm still working on verifying the part tagged as citation needed. I may have to reword it. Thanks again for your comments! Ajpolino (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad there's progress. I'd much prefer if you treated each of my comments as a discussion thread, replying to it when you believe you have completed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• As the table shows, the main remaining issue is to rework the lead section to ensure it summarizes the article fully. A good place to start is simply to go through all the main sections of the article and check each one is covered by a sentence in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gave it a go, per your recommendation. Artful writing is not my greatest strength, so a copyedit or suggestions would be most welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Genome?

A few words about the genome would be appropriate. Number of genes? Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hypnozoite" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hypnozoite has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 3 § Hypnozoite until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)