Talk:Pseudomonas putida: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John J. Dennehy (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Tom Kelly (→recommendation: new section) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== recommendation == | |||
Hello, | |||
I'm not an expert in English or in Microbiology, but I would recommend strengthening the sentence begining with: "Being a non-pathogenic bacteria," ... | |||
Here is what I think. The subsection is called "pathology." Since you say it is non-pathogenic, you should say that in the first sentence, then go on to say how it is similar to P. aeriginosa (sp?). Or, say both in the first sentence - ... ex "P. putida is considered nonpathogenic, but is similar in genome to p. aeriginosa and a handful of infections have been reported..." | |||
Cheers, | |||
[[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 11:52, 18 April 2008 (CDT) |
Latest revision as of 10:52, 18 April 2008
recommendation
Hello, I'm not an expert in English or in Microbiology, but I would recommend strengthening the sentence begining with: "Being a non-pathogenic bacteria," ...
Here is what I think. The subsection is called "pathology." Since you say it is non-pathogenic, you should say that in the first sentence, then go on to say how it is similar to P. aeriginosa (sp?). Or, say both in the first sentence - ... ex "P. putida is considered nonpathogenic, but is similar in genome to p. aeriginosa and a handful of infections have been reported..."
Cheers, Tom Kelly 11:52, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Biology Category Check
- Eduzendium Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Eduzendium Developing Articles
- Eduzendium Nonstub Articles
- Eduzendium Internal Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Eduzendium Underlinked Articles