Talk:Micrococcus luteus

Notes

it should be stated clearly that this organism is a strict aerobe.

Am I correct by saying it is motile?

It's non-motile. 129.97.113.165 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reclassification of ATCC 9341 from Micrococcus luteus to Kocuria rhizophila

Strain ATCC 9341, currently known as Micrococcus luteus, has been designated as a quality-control strain in a number of applications. It is also cited as the standard culture in several official methods and manuals, as well as the Code of Federal Regulations. Over the years, it has become apparent that ATCC 9341 does not resemble other M. luteus strains; however, its phenotypic characteristics alone were ambiguous. Recently, a polyphasic study was performed in which molecular data were combined with cytochemical properties and physiological characteristics. The results clearly indicate ATCC 9341 is a member of the genus Kocuria. Thus, it is proposed to reclassify ATCC 9341 as Kocuria rhizophila and to alert users worldwide of this name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.60.231 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The scale in the image should be in microns, not millimetres (sorry if i've written this in the wrong place) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.140.130 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism ?

Could Flemming really discover the high G+C content in 1928 ? As far as I remember, the DNA structure was not even known. Should we correct this sentence or do I miss something ?

Well, he probably could have learned the GC content by isolating the DNA, and chemically determining the relative amounts of G's and C's versus A's and T's. However, he would not have done this as it was not known that the bases base-paired.Gobbits (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)