Talk:Mycoplasma laboratorium

Patent Application Status

According to the USPTO, the patent application has been abandoned due to "Failure to respond to an office action" in July 2015. Presumably, the patent status in other countries is also abandoned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE74:A4E0:641D:6103:14B2:708B (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant

The organism has already been created. See Synthia. The article should be totally reedited, deleted or merged with Synthia, that needs further editing itself. Ehudzel (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Chromosome?

I think this would be the name of the complete life form, rather than the chromosome. Evercat 13:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also note that the complete life form has not yet been created, at least according to the two sources we have. 87.75.165.169 21:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - both of you! I just saw this in the news and I thought it was quite interesting. But I'm no expert, and I knew that others would help to improve the article. So thanks! Grundle2600 00:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Where was it created?

???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a huge project across America. There was no one particular lab working on it; it was a collaboration.NivinN (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a legitimate bacteriological name?

I'm probably being overly pendantic, but is it appropriate to italicize Mycoplasma laboratorium? As far as I can tell, this is not a name that has any nomenclatural standing, at least I can't find anywhere in IJSEM. I'm a botanist, not a bacteriologist, so I'm not too sure about the provisions of the Bacteriological Code (and how it would apply to engineered organisms), but it looks like "Mycoplasma laboratorium" is just something Venter made up. Be careful not to treat it as a formal scientific name. 63.78.97.2 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As a botanist you are aware of how binomial names are derived... someone makes them up! Whether it's Carl Linnaeus or Craig Venter, peer consensus determines the 'formal scientific' acceptance Jebus989^✰ 09:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody makes them up, yes. But there are rules to follow; peer consensus doesn't actually matter. As long as somebody follows the rules, they've established a scientific name. I could declare my cat to be a new species of feline; even if everybody but me thinks its an ordinary cat, I can still establish the new name (I'd probably have to self-publish, but passing peer review isn't part of the rules for plants and animals). The rules for bacteria are more strict than for plants and animals; there's only one journal (IJSEM) where new bacteria names can be published. Venter hasn't followed these rules (nor has Danone with Bifidus regularis (Bifidobacterium animalis). The use of Mycoplasma laboratorium in this article seems reasonable at the moment though. I just don't want to see a taxobox with that name (I'm 63.78.97.2 above, just editing from a different IP).192.104.39.2 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this article uses the term Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0 in the nomenclatutural world you reffer to in the higher animals there is provision for subspecies and this is used for domesticated organisms perhaps this is the nomenclatural that the venter group should be using IE Mycoplasma genitalium laboratorium --Infocat13 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The discoverer of a new species has the right to baptise it as it were, but the name has to be accepted by a zoological commission, this is not and does not appear in Bergey's taxonomy book. --Squidonius (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Does the nickname of the first Mycoplasma laboratorium (Synthia) need its own article? AIRcorn (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect: I do not think it is warranted, Synthia should redirect to this article because the information there is redundant. Besides CJV called Synthia "a derogatory term developed by four Canadians" (Newsnight interview 20 May 2010) Jebus989^✰ 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Redirected AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I took the liberty of expanding the article. The original content has become the section on minimal genome and I added a brief section about Mycoplasma. I did something unusual for the references; that is, I split them into two sections popular press and primary sources. It may need some work still, but I hope everyone finds it an improvement. Consequently I nominated it for the DYK--Squidonius (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Split

I know that the article is now good, but I am concerned about the fact that only editorials speculate the link between M. Genitalium JCVI and "M.laboratorium". Does a Venter institute paper make the link? If not, the articles should be split, but deeply interlinked. I fear that there may have been confusion between the Minimal genome project and the creation of a synthetic organism, which two separe feats, stemmed from the misleading name M. laboratorium. In addition to the split, I'd advocate a renaming of this to minimal genome project and the new synthetic genome page to Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0 (not synthia). Opinions? --Squidonius (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of splitting of the article at this point in time, especially since M. laboratorium has not yet been "synthesized" and since the overall length of the article is not excessive. In a related issue, one needs to read the last sentence in the minimal genome project section before one finds out what the relationship is between M. Genitalium JCVI and M. laboratorium. I think this should be mentioned in the lead so that readers are quickly informed what the current status of the project is. Boghog (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Statement

The following is the third paragraph of the Mycoplasma section:

Additionally, as of November 2010, there are 1363 sequenced prokaryotic genomes in NCBI [1] and 4 newly discovered species have less genes than M. genitalium, but it many essential genes are missing in Hodgkinia cicadicola , Sulcia muelleri, Baumannia cicadellinicola (symbionts of cicadas) and Carsonella ruddi (symbiote of hackberry petiole gall psyllid, Pachypsylla venusta[a 8]) may be encoded in the host nucleus [a 9]

The question is, what was the author trying to convey with the statement but it many essential genes are missing in Hodgkinia cicadicola ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.102.18 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I removed "it" and hopefully it now makes sense. Don't be afraid to fix it yourself next time you see a problem, noting why you changed it in the edit summary. SmartSE (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I also found the quote unclear. More information should be included regarding the genes that are absent from Hodgkina cicadicola (and the others?) and why these genes are essential. Threepenpals (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

It feels to me like this article should be renamed (perhaps Minimal Genome Project? I'm not sure if that should be considered a separate subject or not). As far as I can tell, Mycoplasma laboratorium is not a name that Venter's team is really using currently; numerous places in the article talk about "M. laboratorium" although this string doesn't appear (as far as I can tell from the abstracts) in the referenced sources. I raised some objections to treating Mycoplasma laboratorium as a scientific name above (writing as an IP address at the time). Using the italicized and abbreviated form M. laboratorium as far as I can tell is not done in any referenced works, and may have originated on Wikipedia. Mycoplasma laboratorium is not a scientific name, and should not be italicized and abbreviated as if it is one. Furthermore, the full, non-italicized form doesn't even appear to be a term being actively used by the researchers in question. I'd suggest retitling the article, and I am going to write out and de-italicize all instances of M. laboratorium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC) As there is a lemma 'Minimal genome' I'd rather propose to move sections 'Other Genera' and 'Minimal Genome Project' to the 'Minimal Genome' lemma. No one reading the 'Minimal Genome' lemma might look up this lemma here for additional information as provided by the 'Minimal Genome Project' section. Note that JCVI's aim is *not* to produce some 'artificial' beacterium with minimal genome, because their first preference is to produce one that has quick reproduction rate (and second to keep the genome small). So M. laboratorium has is not strongly related to 'Minimal genome'. Ernsts (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Frankenlead

The lead was grotesquely inadequate (and flagged as such since last year). I hoisted several suitable paragraphs from the text into the lead (moving the independent bits and replicating other bits where excision would have damaged the flow). I made no effort to massage the resulting Frankenlead or refashion the main article text. This would be better attempted by someone versed in the subject matter. — MaxEnt 02:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jezabels album

There's an album by The Jezabels called "Synthia". I was redirected here, when I gave it in. The entry Synthia (Jezabels album) doesn't exist yet, but if someone starts it, there should be an disambiguation at the start of both articles. Jezabeliberté (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Successful new cell does NOT use this name.

In the March 25, 2016 announcement in Science, the successful new cell is called Syn 3.0. The article did not mention M. laboratorium. It did not mention Synthia. Venter's group did not use M. genitalium in making the new cell because it reproduces too slowly. Trying to post the latest information seems like an endless task! Zipzip50 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Synthia, Oil, Gulf of Mexico

Any relation "Mycoplasma laboratorium" with story about oil removal in Gulf of Mexico? [1]. Тибериум (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are natural microbes AFAIK, we are not good enough to engineer something that sophisticated yet. Logophile59 (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Confusing section and table

I find the section "Other organisms with small genomes" and accompanying table very confusing. Most of the organisms in the paragraph aren't in the table and vice versa. Also, consider adding a "date of discovery" column to the table. It's also possible that a unique article "Organisms with smallest genomes" is warranted. 130.76.120.201 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Syn3.0 - updates needed to article.

Isn't Syn3.0 a significant enough organism to have more (and more up to date) information about it included in the article? The latest information I can see seems to be up to 2016. In the article that I read in Quanta magazine, also from 2016, one of the most significant things about the Syn3.0 organism is that 79 genes out of 473 had, at that time, an unknown function. They are completely essential to the life of the thing but, as of 2016, nobody knew why. If further research identified the function of these mysterious genes, that research should be added to bring the article up to date. I will try to find relevant research after 2016, and add it to the article, with appropriate citations. Pascalulu88 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)