Talk:Borrelia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smneu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Confusion

While the article currently equates Borrelia with Borrelia burgdorferi (agent of Lyme disease), Borrelia is the genus, and it also includes other bacteria such as the agents of Relapsing fever. Many new Borrelia species and strains have been recently discovered according to the Lyme disease article; whether or not some of these belong in the Lyme disease or Relapsing fever category (or another) seems yet to be determined. But they're not all Borrelia burgorferi.--64.223.32.188 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Borrelia aren't microaerophilic

According to the source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16814991 borrelia don't need oxygen. So they aren't microaerophile but obligate anaerobe. This is important for patients, because they should increase their oxygen intake. --178.197.236.82 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, some Borellia are obligate anaerobe and some have aerotolerance according to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16814991. --178.197.226.131 (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

add new borrelia sensus lato especies, borrelia chilensis, recently discovered

The bacteria is said to be potentially pathogenic belonging to the borrelia sensus latu, adding to the hipótesis tha lyme disease could be endemic un south América, refer to this Links: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258034437_Borrelia_chilensis_a_new_member_of_the_Borrelia_burgdorferi_sensu_lato_complex_that_extends_the_range_of_this_genospecies_in_the_Southern_Hemisphere http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24148079 Laureanolucero (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Identification of a novel pathogenic Borrelia species causing Lyme borreliosis with unusually high spirochaetaemia: a descriptive study
--Lamiot (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borrelia. 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/20110613224152/http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/classifphyla.html to http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/classifphyla.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417022323/http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlPrinter=true&xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijid%2Fvol6n1%2Fborreliosis.xml to http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlPrinter=true&xmlFilePath=journals%2Fijid%2Fvol6n1%2Fborreliosis.xml

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) 18:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomic changes, 2014 onwards

Just noting that since 2013, Borrelia has been placed in the new family Borreliaceae and also that the Lyme-related Borrelia species have been separated in a new genus, Borreliella Adeolu & Gupta, 2015, a move which has been disputed by some (Margos et al., 2017) but reaffirmed by Barbour et al., 2017. References are:

• Gupta, R. S.; Mahmood, S.; Adeolu, M. (2013). A phylogenomic and molecular signature based approach for characterization of the phylum Spirochaetes and its major clades: proposal for a taxonomic revision of the phylum. Frontiers in Microbiology. 4., available online at https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00217
• Adeolu, M.; Gupta, R. S. (2014). A phylogenomic and molecular marker based proposal for the division of the genus Borrelia into two genera: the emended genus Borrelia containing only the members of the relapsing fever Borrelia, and the genus Borreliella gen. nov. containing the members of the Lyme disease Borrelia (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex). Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 105(6): 1049-1072., available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-014-0164-x
• Margos, G.; Marosevic, D.; Cutler, S.; Derdakova, M.; Diuk-Wasser, M.; Emler, S.; Fish, D.; Gray, J.; Hunfeldt, K.-P.; Jaulhac, B.; Kahl, O.; Kovalev, S.; Kraiczy, P.; Lane, R. S.; Lienhard, R.; Lindgren, P. E.; Ogden, N.; Ornstein, K.; Rupprecht, T.; Schwartz, I.; Sing, A.; Straubinger, R. K.; Strle, F.; Voordouw, M.; Rizzoli, A.; Stevenson, B.; Fingerle, V. (2017). There is inadequate evidence to support the division of the genus Borrelia. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 67(4): 1081-1084.
• Barbour, A. G.; Adeolu, M.; Gupta, R. S. (2017). Division of the genus Borrelia into two genera (corresponding to Lyme disease and relapsing fever groups) reflects their genetic and phenotypic distinctiveness and will lead to a better understanding of these two groups of microbes (Margos et al. (2016) There is inadequate evidence to support the division of the genus Borrelia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.001717). International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 67(6): 2058-2067.

Since the ramifications are somewhat wide ranging (and also subject to some dispute as noted above), (and I am also a bit busy with other things at present) I have not changed the current article text but may do in the future, or others are welcome to do so. Regards - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Planning edits

Hello! I'm planning on upgrading this page for a class assignment. I'm going to add in necessary citations and also more information. One of these edits includes adding in a newly discovered species to the phylogenetic tree, which I'm not sure how to do. The new species is B. mayonii and was discovered by Pritt et al. in 2016. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smneu (talk • contribs) 16:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Great! One potential sticky situation you'll run into is that there has been some recent disagreement over whether Borrelia should be a single large genus, or split into two genera (with the lyme disease-causing bacteria in the genus Borreliella and the others remaining in Borrelia). See the post just above yours for references. Since it's at least somewhat contentious, I've had no desire to split this page into Borrelia and Borreliella (as you can see we still don't have a page for the new genus name), and it appears no one else has either. I think (though I haven't taken a thorough look recently) that most sources are still referring to B. burgdorferi as a member of Borrelia, so maybe we'll just wait until the new genus name catches on before we split it? Idk. As for the phylogenetic tree, the editing of them is a bit opaque, but if you stare at the code and practice in your sandbox, you'll figure it out. Where we should put the new species is another story (Is it clear from the paper what species it's closest to?). It may be time to replace that phylogenetic tree... I'm not sure. I'll have a chance to take a look later in the week. Thanks for giving this page some much-needed attention! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for reaching out! I ran into that controversy over naming in my research and was considering mentioning it in the lead paragraph, and perhaps having a search of Borreliella redirect to the Borrelia page. As for the new species, I don't think its genetic relations are entirely known yet, so maybe I will just mention it in the text. Thanks. Smneu (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello! Today I made some major edits to this page. I added information, citations, and 3 sections. Please review the history of the page for my specific edits. Feel free to reach out if you have any suggestions or concerns. ThanksSmneu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In Australia

The official position of all Australian governments and of the Australian Medical Association is that "There is NO Lyme disease in Australia". Having said that, there appears to be strong anecdotal evidence that there is indeed in Australia a tick spread bacterium, PROBABLY similar to Borrelia, that causes a disease with similar symptoms.

Vectors

Why is there a section on "Lice" under "Vectors", given that CDC has concluded (per cited source) that there is no credible evidence lice transmit Borrelia? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The CDC source says that lice do not transmit Borrelia that cause Lyme disease. They do transmit Borrelia recurrentis, a cause of relapsing fever. This Wikipedia article barely mentions relapsing fever, descriptions of which are confined to one section. The phylogenetic tree is missing Borrelia that cause relapsing fever, and the lead doesn't mention relapsing fever or the bacteria that cause the disease at all. CatPath ^{meow at me} 10:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)