Talk:Agrobacterium tumefaciens

[1] An article that mention this pages content

Merger Proposal

Don't think the Ti plasmid deserves it's own article in it's current state, and since the Ti Plasmid is a natural part of this bacteria the content would be better off here. Million_Moments (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A. tumefaciens is a distinct species of organism and needs its own page. Ti plasmids are present in other organisms than A. tumefaciens such as Agrobacterium rhizogenes (and perhaps others), so it totally does not make any sense to merge the two articles.

WriterHound (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose a redirect from Rhizobium radiobacter to Agrobacterium tumefaciens, the UniProt Database says it's the same organism and the Radiobater article is pretty much devoid of useful or clear information. I will make this change (WP:BB) but if consensus objects please discuss it here

Jebus989^★ 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Any plasmid is a separate entity which may be a parasite or a commensal of any organism. while some plasmids have a narrow host range like the Ti plasmid, many plasmids have a wide host range. In many people's opinion, a plasmid falls into some sort of a "sub-living entity" category. I therefore do not think the two articles should be merged but since the relationship between the two is very strong, a link to the other is deserved on each page. (Varun (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

The CDC has launched an investigation of cross-species (plant-human) replication of viral dna that causes skin eruptions in people. Anyone with current information regarding this bio/mechanical viral dna expression in humans should both post to wiki and if it appears you have evidence of infestation or transmission vectors, contact the United States Center for Disease Control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.197.163 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

References

References have been converted to footnotes where possible, but some literature citations did not have text references. These have been left in hope another editor will footnote them. Also note there are no citations for some, e.g. Smith and Townsend, 1907, Duggar, 1909.--Zeamays (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Smith & Townsend reference is the Authority who described the species and, as such, does not require a formal full reference

Jebus989^★ 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

picture style code broken

needs style tags or something, I can't be bothered to figure out proper tags, just wanted to bump with an edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.4.241 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Name

The scientific name is today (~2016) a different one, as the article states. Nonetheless, people I know, but also in the literature, the name Agrobacterium tumefaciens is commonly used. It would be nice if a small paragraph could be added that briefly mentions this, e. g. at which point the bacterium was renamed and also why. 2A02:8388:1601:800:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agrobacterium tumefaciens. 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/20110728144300/http://pir.uniprot.org/taxonomy/358 to http://pir.uniprot.org/taxonomy/358

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) 05:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)