Lably
Skip to content

Mycoplasma genitalium

Species of bacterium

  • 12 min read
  • 7 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Pathogen, Bacteria and Epithelium

History

Mycoplasma genitalium was originally isolated in 1980 from urethral specimens of two male patients with non-gonococcal urethritis in the genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London. It was reported in 1981 by a team led by Joseph G. Tully. Under electron microscopy, it appears as a flask-shaped cell with a narrow terminal portion that is crucial for its attachment to the host cell surfaces. The bacterial cell is slightly elongated, somewhat like a vase, and measures 0.6–0.7 μm in length, 0.3–0.4 μm at the broadest region, and 0.06–0.08 μm at the tip. The base is broad while the tip is stretched into a narrow neck, which terminates with a cap. The terminal region has a specialised region called nap, which is absent in other mycoplasmas. Serological tests indicated that the bacterium was not related to known species of Mycoplasma. The comparison of genome sequences with other urinogenital bacteria, such as M. hominis and Ureaplasma parvum, revealed that M. genitalium is significantly different, especially in the energy-generating pathways, although it shared a core genome of ~250 protein-encoding genes.

In 2018, Gupta et al. proposed to change the name of Mycoplasma genitalium to Mycoplasmoides genitalium on phylogenetic grounds, reflecting the existing knowledge that M. genitalium is not very related to other Mycoplasma. The change became correct name under the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP, "Code") with Validation List 184, published by the ICSP ("Committee"). Mycoplasmaologists working in the field generally oppose this renaming. In 2019, they published an opinion paper arguing that even though the phylogenetic methods are valid, Gupta's renaming scheme causes too many changes, which is impractical and confusing. They cite some essential principles of the Code, such as "no unnecessary new names", "aim at stability of names", and "avoid or reject the use of names which may cause error or confusion". However, the 2019 argument for preserving old names was rejected by the Committee in Opinion 122 of 2022, where it was ruled that the argument incorrectly cited the Code. The Opinion emphasizes that use of an older validly published name remains acceptable under the Code.

Sign in to keep reading

6 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Biology