Talk:Proteobacteria

Classification

1. I know that the phylum of proteobacteria is divided into 5 classes alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon. What is the basis of dividing them into this 5 groups?

-->> It is based on 16S rDNA differences. Onco p53 04:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2. You should probably note that the betaproteobacteria are really a subdivision of the gammaproteobacteria

Noted.

According to iTol (cited) the gamma and beta proteobacteria are sister clades. Peteruetz (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Completing orders and families

I am currently going through, starting with the alpha proteobacteria, to complete the orders and families and to have full tax boxes for them. I won't go down to species level yet. My references will be:

• NCBI Taxonomy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/
• LBSN http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/
• The latest Bergey's lists http://www.cme.msu.edu/bergeys/
• My PhD in Microbiology Onco p53 02:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

uBio microscope is pretty handy, too. It would be nice if we could give :some information beyond membership and phylogenetic position, but that seems difficult for many :groups. Do you know of any orders or families that have unique characteristics, like unusual :metabolic processes or forms? I'd like to expand on such groups, but beyond the photosynthetic :families and myxobacteria, they're hard to identify. Josh

I agree, I'll have a look for general characters, but with the move from a phenetic to phylogenetic classification system, such things can be tricky. Some are easy like Methylobacterium. Onco p53 02:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't Moraxellaceae be listed? Phizq (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Phylogeny

I am ever so sorry to have had to remove the second tree from the article — I know how devastating it feels —, but it was a repetition of the previous figure and had several other issues.

Repetition is the main reason for its removal, but it also contained factual inaccuracies and non-standard style. E.g. pseudomonads are gammaproteobacteria and not some basal species — if some poorly characterised species (non-validated) have been newly discovered possible basal species, it should be written explicitly, like Acidithiobacillus in the previous paragraph —. I am slightly disturbed and annoyed at the frequent usage in wikipedia of Cavalier-Smith nomenclature, which does not anywhere near as much in the actually literature. Regarding the style, I am not sure where it is written, but I am pretty sure the symbols used are not the preferred ones for tables, not to mention it looks ugly. --Squidonius (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

"The alpha, beta, delta, epsilon sections are monophyletic,[5][6][7] bar the Gammaproteobacteria due to the Acidithiobacillus genus is paraphyletic to Betaproteobacteria, according to multigenome alignement studies, which if done correctly are more precise than 16S." Are there words missing (or too many words) here? I'm having trouble understanding this. Amkilpatrick (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Acidithiobacillia and Zetaproteobacteria

The Class Acidithiobacillia has been proposed (Williams & Kelly 2013) and will constitute a Valid Publication as soon as the print edition appears, though the paper is online in the IJSEM as of 29th January 2013. This has been added to the article but the tree on the right needs editing please to add this Class.

The "Zetaproteobacteria" is not a validly published Class and has no standing in nomenclature. It should be removed from the tree on the righthand side since it is effectively nothing more than a nickname until it has been validly published. It is worth leaving mention of it in the article such that its status is widely known. 141.163.157.18 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Dr Rich Boden, University of Plymouth rich dot boden at plymouth dot ac dot uk

chemoautotroph

A typo in the fourth paragraph needs correcting - probably by the author. It reads: "Betaproteobacteria . . . and includes chemoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs." Clearly the editor who wrote this had in mind to include two different classes but repeated "chemoautotrophs" by mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedles (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Recently all the Greek-lettered "classes" have been revised to be called phyla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.73.12 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Cladogram

Proposal for a cladogram replacement as follows:

Phylogeny of "Proteobacteria"

Thermotoga,Aquifex Epsilonproteobacteria Deltaproteobacteria Zetaproteobacteria Oligoflexia Alphaproteobacteria Gammaproteobacteria Acidithiobacillia Betaproteobacteria

Phylogeny of the "Proteobacteria" according to Ryosuke Nakai et al. (2016)

Current references are not onlne and hard to verify. Current cladogram is missing the new classes, too. --Ernsts (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Change from Proteobacteria to Pseudomonadota

I am notifying interested editors that the subject of this article, as presented in the text, but not (yet) in the title, has been changed from Proteobacteria to Pseudomonadota, by an apparently good faith IP editor. Points to consider:

1. Some content was removed. Maybe that content should be copied from history to another article, where it may belong now.
2. If this change is accepted, the article should be moved to Pseudomonadota.

Thanks. tw^sabin 18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The change has since been reverted. tw^sabin 18:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pseudomonadota which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pseudomonadota which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)