Talk:Lactobacillus acidophilus

Agriculture Start‑class Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disagreement with statements on DDS-1 strain of L. acidophilus"

I disagree with the statement that the Nebraska Cultures is the only manufacturer of DDS-1 strain of L. acidophilus. I know the fact that UAS Laboratories holds a patent and trademark of this strain of probiotics. The registered trademark No. is 1,685,959 which was registered in May 12, 1992. Please update this information. nutra —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

L. acidophilus and the vaginal flora

Exactly how does taking L. acidophilus orally help the flora of the vagina? Does the bacterium affect parts of the body other than the gastrointestinal tract and the vagina? IronC hris | (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Taking L.acidophilus orally does not help the flora of the vagina. It just enhances the recolonisation of your gastrointestinal tract. For renewing the flora of the vagina it is recomended to use a tampon dipped into a probiotic yoghurt for a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idea nera (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry! but no. Do not drip your tampon in yogurt. Milk products are not recommended for vaginal use as it may cause vaginal dysbiosis. Adding excess surgars, proteins and lipids, along with other organisms that grow on/in milk would be a bad idea. see BV. Please refrain from giving medical advice here. This talk page is for discussing the article and not a discussion forum on medical treatments. The simple answer to the question above is that the two orifices are only centimeters apart. --MercolaOverMerck♫ (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting to advise others not to give medical advice while you dish out your own.

Rewriting article

This article should be rewritten by some expert, as it deals with many general statements and no clear health effects etc.Knorrepoes 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Issues

I put the article issues template on this article.

I don't really have much to add beyond what the template says-- the article needs more and better references, needs to more consistently cite sources for its claims, and needs to be split into sections. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a faulty article edit, cleaned up some bad formatting... but have no interest/knowledge to rewrite the article. Agree with Knorrepoes that it needs to be rewritten by a more knowledgeable user. DTXBrian (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal growth temperature is 37 C, not 30 C

From: Study of the cryotolerance of Lactobacillus acidophilus: effect of culture and freezing conditions on the viability and cellular protein levels by Leïla Bâati, Cathy Fabre-Gea, Daniel Auriol and Philippe J. BlancCorresponding, as published in International Journal of Food Microbiology Volume 59, Issue 3, 10 September 2000, Pages 241-247

"Growth kinetic studies at different temperatures: 4, 15, 22, 30 and 37°C showed that Lb. acidophilus had an optimal growth temperature of 37°C..."

I have edited the old 30 C entry, but i can not add a citation as the quoted work in not public domain.

Also Karlin R., Carrazz M.: VIe Symposium sul les matieres entrangeres daus les aliments, Madrid, Octobre 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwillgetitallback (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. We can still cite a reference whether or not it's in public domain. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation neededs

Excessive use of "citation needed" is unprofessional and adds no value.

second photograph

The second photograph on the page identifies the organisms as "L. acidophilus" in the caption. However, the description given by the original author (CDC) does NOT identify these as L. acidophilus, but rather just as organisms from the Lactobacillus genus. (NOT the L. acidophilus species!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acc78 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've removed the pic here and fixed the caption at Lactobacillus. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side Effects Update

However, people with some conditions? What conditions, and proof? SmarterThanILook (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough data

It would seem to me there is very little information on Acidophilus (or any probiotic really) With all these citation neededs and lack of information, it makes me worried for taking some probiotics just today. And why would anyone have to repeatedly take a strain of bacteria? Won't it re-produce within my gut (divide/multiply) the whole probiotic thing just seems to lack any credibility or foundation. 50.47.120.145 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]