Talk:Agrobacterium tumefaciens

Merger Proposal

Don't think the Ti plasmid deserves it's own article in it's current state, and since the Ti Plasmid is a natural part of this bacteria the content would be better off here. Million_Moments (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A. tumefaciens is a distinct species of organism and needs its own page. Ti plasmids are present in other organisms than A. tumefaciens such as Agrobacterium rhizogenes (and perhaps others), so it totally does not make any sense to merge the two articles.

WriterHound (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose a redirect from Rhizobium radiobacter to Agrobacterium tumefaciens, the UniProt Database says it's the same organism and the Radiobater article is pretty much devoid of useful or clear information. I will make this change (WP:BB) but if consensus objects please discuss it here Jebus989^★ 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Any plasmid is a separate entity which may be a parasite or a commensal of any organism. while some plasmids have a narrow host range like the Ti plasmid, many plasmids have a wide host range. In many people's opinion, a plasmid falls into some sort of a "sub-living entity" category. I therefore do not think the two articles should be merged but since the relationship between the two is very strong, a link to the other is deserved on each page. (Varun (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

The CDC has launched an investigation of cross-species (plant-human) replication of viral dna that causes skin eruptions in people. Anyone with current information regarding this bio/mechanical viral dna expression in humans should both post to wiki and if it appears you have evidence of infestation or transmission vectors, contact the United States Center for Disease Control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.197.163 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

References

References have been converted to footnotes where possible, but some literature citations did not have text references. These have been left in hope another editor will footnote them. Also note there are no citations for some, e.g. Smith and Townsend, 1907, Duggar, 1909.--Zeamays (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Smith & Townsend reference is the Authority who described the species and, as such, does not require a formal full reference Jebus989^★ 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

picture style code broken

needs style tags or something, I can't be bothered to figure out proper tags, just wanted to bump with an edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.4.241 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Name

The scientific name is today (~2016) a different one, as the article states. Nonetheless, people I know, but also in the literature, the name Agrobacterium tumefaciens is commonly used. It would be nice if a small paragraph could be added that briefly mentions this, e. g. at which point the bacterium was renamed and also why. 2A02:8388:1601:800:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agrobacterium tumefaciens. 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/20110728144300/http://pir.uniprot.org/taxonomy/358 to http://pir.uniprot.org/taxonomy/358

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) 05:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomic mess

What this article calls A. tumefaciens is mostly A. radiobacter and in one case a distinct species-level group with only an invalid name "A. fabrum". Ideally we move most content to A. radiobacter (or for things that apply broadly to the now not-very-broad Agrobacterium, Agrobacterium) and describe what the real, actual strains in A. tumefaciens do.

This will probably never happen due to the amount of work involved. Sources that use the name Rhizobium radiobacter can be somewhat confidently assigned to A. radiobacter, but beyond that it's just boring work searching for the strain on BacDive or GenBank. And it is still totally possible for no match to happen. (Pre-1980 sources are technically not affected by the error, but do you really trust pre-1980 identification of bacteria? For what they know, the difference between "radiobacter" and "tumefaciens" is whether they make a tumor, not anything remotely related to modern bacteria species concepts.) It's not going to be pretty and I really, really don't expect anyone to do it. I mean, you do the thing, then what? Bunch of people get angry at you breaking their links.

Anyways. here's a breakdown of what can end up where by section.

• Every source that vaguely says "crown galls" can go to Agrobacterium. A. rubi and "A. fabrum" are neither but they make galls too.
  • Environment section.
• Everything about a Ti plasmid applies broadly to Agrobacterium. Well technically it goes beyond that but let's not be greedy.
  • Infection method, applies broadly. Heavily cites C58 sources.
  • Genes in the T-DNA, applies broadly, basically built around C58.
  • Disease cycle applies broadly to Agrobacterium. One source on "tumefaciens" from 1972 and one from 2005.
  • Disease management applies broadly to Agrobacterium.

Breakdown by source:

• Moore 1997: mentions C58 (fabrum), K84 (rhizogenes), A208 (unknown), A277 (unknown), A281 (unknown), A519 (unknown). A bit surprising considering the reference strains are not rare in literature, but somehow not a lot of sequences for em.
• Beltran 2023: C58.
• Winans 1992: C58.
• Gelvin 2003 source explicitly acknowledges that the taxonomy of "this causes X gall, this causes Y gall, this casues nothing" was used.
• Demanèche 2001 uses strain GM19023 (unknown).

Artoria2e5 🌉 15:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying the mess without too much moving

There is possibly some chance of clarifying the mess without too much moving by mentioning the magic words "Agrobacterium tumefaciens species complex". Authors who use this phrase are very aware of this mess and make good effort to clarify what is going on by separating genomovars or genomovospecies. A lot of G-species remain unnamed and identified by number only, but it is known that they have pretty good correlation with ecology (doi:10.1093/gbe/evr070/589154). For recent sources try doi:10.1094/PHYTO-05-19-0178-R and doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302954.--Artoria2e5 🌉 15:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)