This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Candida albicans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The recent edits by 24.64.223.203 contain some strong, but unsourced claims. Someone who knows the subject might want to check this. Rl 08:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to whether Phenotypic switching "is" dimorphism or if it is similar to it. I am going to remove the line declaring that it IS dimorphism for now since the next paragraph starts with an apparent contradiction to this statement. If someone can give me any input in favor against this edit, i would appreciate it Dinosaurdarrell 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
It has been taken care off. It should be more clear now. Garnhami (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
hey! i am sorry, but c. albicans is not really a sexual fungus! it is rathter classified as an asexual fungus, as no meiosis has been described for this yeast. C. albicans has only a parasexual cycle, which has only been observed in vitro.i am also agree with you that c.albicans will show only parasexual cycl only.....
But i dont know how to update the page! Can you help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.13.144.74 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
Are antibiotics like penicillin and streptomycin going to be effective against candida albicans? why or why not? Discuss where and what structure the antibiotics act on.
Also what is its gram reaction? What about it's structure prevents its staining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.154.189 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Greatly appreciated would be the consideration by one of the article's contributors for the purpose of clarifying the statement
Is it meant
Or is it meant
In the statement's rewording into the two different forms, one can recognize the distinction in meanings. It can be presumed that the first rewording represents the intended meaning of the statement; however, if what is meant is represented by the second statement, then the statement should be
Nonetheless, may we rephrase the statement to one of the reworded examples in order to eliminate any confusion and explicitly state the intended meaning?
Thank you. Drphilharmonic (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Since this is a disease, would it not be appropriate to have a section regarding diagnosis and symptoms and such? I am trying to differentiate between Tinea Cruris and Candida Albicans. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:21FF:1CF0:0:0:0:36 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
"C. albicans, together with C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata, is responsible for 50–90% of all cases of candidiasis in humans."
The singular verb 'is' implies that C. Albicans is the only subject of the sentence, and so:
"C. albicans is responsible for 50–90% of all cases of candidiasis in humans."
I don't think that's what's actually meant (although I could be wrong) and I would suggest that it be rephrased to:
"C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata, are together responsible for 50–90% of all cases of candidiasis in humans."
I'm going to make this change, but wanted to leave some additional explanation. 38.88.11.34 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Candida albicans. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a seperate section in light of Wikipietime (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)