Talk:Giardia duodenalis

Discussion
The original version of this article was taken from the public domain source at http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/releases/giardia.html -- site is a U.S. Federal government site, and the author has a U.S. Federal Government E-mail address and is listed on the staff directory. The Anome 22:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

There is also another image uploaded at image:giardia.jpg, but it's not as good-looking, but I thought I'd mention it here less it become an orphan.


 * I've remobed the classification given on this page, because it was entirely inaccurate. Diplomonads, of which Giardia is the best known, are completely unrelated to ciliates and have always been considered as such.  Unfortunately I can't replace it with anything else, since the classification of flagellates is still in flux.  I am researching the current thought on the excavates, and hopefully will be able to put something here soon. Josh


 * hmm... I put that taxobox in. I can't recall where I got the classification from, but it certainly doesn't stand up to investigation.  I'm no microbiologist and I suspect I picked it up from another Wikipedia page and missed some crucial discontinuity.  What do you think of the ITIS version:

Kingdom Animalia -- Animal, animals, animaux Phylum Sarcomastigophora Subphylum Mastigophora -- flagellated protozoans Class Zoomastigophora Order Diplomonadida Family Hexamitidae    and they are always running in your body! Genus Giardia Kunstler, 1882 Species Giardia lamblia Kofoid and Christiansen, 1915
 * we presumably wouldn't want to place them in Animalia, but there doesn't seem much disagreement about it at least up to Zoomastigophora. I would feel happier giving some kind of taxobox, even if we express doubts about it in the text, than leaving the uninstructed reader with no idea about what kind of creature this might be at all.  seglea 09:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ITIS uses the old morphological classifications for protozoa, which are simply obsolete. They generally conflict with newer schemes, which I have been using where possible, and to some extent with themselves - Ochromonas belongs just as much to the Mastigophora as it does to the Chrysophyta. Using them would be easy, but I don't think it's worth it. All the information in the above is contained in a statement like "Giardia belongs to a group of colorless flagellate protozoa called diplomonads", and that sort of opening sentence would be better for letting people know where they are anyways. Taxoboxes should be omitted when there is no acceptable classification, as is the case for many Protista; doing otherwise is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood.

That said, the top-level groups of protists have stabilized to the point where phyla can generally be given. If you felt it was absolutely necessary to give a taxobox, diplomonads should either be treated as an independent phylum Diplomonadida, or as an order within the phylum Metamonada (possibly class Trepomonadea, but that may not be a valid concept). Which scheme we use depends on what's better for other related protozoa, however.

So, it now looks like there's enough evidence that the metamonads can be used as a stable group, though the oxymonads may still end up somewhere else. I've added a taxobox accordingly. Josh

Practical tips for prevention/treatment
The article by Robert L. Rockwell linked below by Freeheel ought to be cited and somehow incorporated into the Wikipedia article. I may take a stab at it. It's a review of numerous scholarly articles and suggests, as noted by Freeheel, that the perceived threat of Giardia from backcountry water sources in the Sierra Nevada is way overblown. Calamitybrook (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All public health agencies with which I am familiar recommend treating or filtering backcountry water. Here is my response to the Rockwell article and statements from others skeptical that people are getting giardiasis from backcountry water: http://bucktrack.blogspot.com/2011/03/waterborne-giardia-for-backpackers-no.html I would like to see mention of the infectious dose in this article, which is often cited as 10-25 cysts but I think is more accurately one or more cysts. Please see my link for more.4.254.84.48 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all very scientific, but I was hoping for some practical tips for prevention/treatment of giardia. I heard that this is disease is something to be worried about when I go camping in British Columbia, and that I should be using a water filter at all times. Is this true? How likely is it that I will suffer "diarrhea and abdominal cramps" after drinking water from a BC campsite? According to this website: http://giardiaclub.com/ ...a water filter is essential, but then they're selling them! -- Nojer2 16:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It is very likely, considering deer poop and pee in streams, river, and lakes. Fish also leave waste. There are carcasses of dead animals too! - 24.8.251.174
 * Based on my experience, the giardia cyst is far more difficult to acquire in the wilderness than the filter manufacurers would have us believe.  I operate a summer camp for boys located 120 miles(200km) north of Montreal, Canada.  Our specialty is wilderness canoe trips; we have written records of 3722 canoe trips during our 80 year history.  We have a doctor on-staff and a well equipped hospital 15 miles from us; we keep very accurate medical records.  To my knowledge we have never had a diagnosed case of giardia. A positive diagnosis, I understand, must come from examining a stool sample.  I personally have drunk wilderness water from hundreds of lakes, streams, beaver creeks and ponds all over Canada during my 78 years and have never experienced the symptoms of a giardia infection; nor has an acquaintance who runs a large Canadian outfitting organization and has travelled far more widely than I. Although not stictly scientific, anecdotal evidence of this magnitude must have some value. -- Peter Van Wagner, Camp Nominingue Inc. (peter -dot- vanwagner -at- sympatico.ca)
 * Thanks for that Peter. We certainly didn't notice any problems with Giardia on our camping and kayaking trip. The wary people of the group were pumping all their water through a filter, but I suspect it was a waste of effort (and it is quite hard work!).
 * The article currently says "Filter use or boiling is recommended for purifying drinking water in wilderness conditions", should this be changed? It's not factually incorrect. It is recommended, it's just that the people doing the recommending are being a bit paranoid. I would like to see a section 'practical tips for prevention/treatment', but I don't know enough about it. -- Nojer2 16:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Nojer2 raises a good point, and accurately characterizes the issue on filtering. There is fairly compelling evidence that proper personal hygiene is far more important in avoiding giardiasis than filtering or treating water. (IMHO a more detailed discussion on wilderness exposure and filtering, which includes citation to this article, should be added to the main page.)  Also of note, it is unclear whether pack animals are significant carriers in the wilderness. As for my personal experience, I went back to drinking unfiltered water in 2002 after reading the first article, with the only result being my joy at not having to carry a filter or waste time pumping.  Freeheel 16:24, 20 Sep 2006 (PDT)
 * It depends where you are. "120 miles north of Montreal" cannot be a place with as many hikers/backpackers as most of the Sierra Nevada. In the Sierra, it's pretty likely that any water you may find, no matter the altitude, has had human feces washed into it. This of course is the transmission vector for giardia. 198.49.180.40 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're taking your chances everywhere you go. You really have no way of knowing what's in the water, so I'd rather take a few minutes to filter my water than get diarrhea in the wilderness. Maxpower212 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to my earlier comments, I read somewhere that the giardia cyst tends to sink to the bottom of lakes and streams. So one way to avoid it is to scoop your water from the surface. This probably wouldn't help much if you only had fast running water to scoop from. The answer there is to get your water from the quieter sections of rivers and streams. This may have something to do with the people in the Adarondak Mountain region in the eastern USA seeming to be the most paranoid about it since they are drinking mostly from small shallow streams. Some people have told me that giardia is quite common there and how much of that knowledge is hearsay I don't know. I have read in some statistical information published by the USA government that giardia is most prevalent in daycare facilities were they are constantly changing diapers and, presumably,not washing hands as well as they should.Peter Van Wagner. 4.4.05.
 * Should information on other species of giardia that infect species other than humans be included in this article, or should a new article be started? Fledchen 22:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO non-human Giardia lamblia infections should be mentioned in the article but infections with other species require description elsewhere. Kpjas 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The practical information on this page needs to be expanded. Giardia is only prevalent at some water temperatures and elevations. It is not a global concern. In the rivers and lakes where it is a concern it is very serious and can not be avoided by "scoop your water from the surface."  I am not sure on the details, but if you talk to anyone that has had it they will assure you the pain of a filter and treatment is more than worth it, especially considering the antibiotic treatment.  Please do not adjust my addition unless replacing it with something better along the same lines.
 * Depends on what you mean by "global concern". It certainly is a problem in many parts of the world, although not all of them.  I have recently coauthored a paper on the settling of Giardia and Crypto in reservoirs. While they settle to some degree, in practical terms it depends on so many factors that you are better off not trying it. Maxpower212 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought dengue was "Beaver fever", not giardiasis....?
 * As someone who got recurrent Giardia, along with my young daughter, it IS worthwhile filtering or otherwise treating the water.
 * Dengue is yellow fever. Maxpower212 (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have Giardia right now, and it sucks, hard. I contracted it merely through my town's water supply (tap water). This is the second time I've contracted it, and after the first time, I have no idea why I stopped using the filter.

Get a filter!! <-- this is coming from someone suffering horrible diarrhea and really bad stomach pain, not a filter company.

Problem with testing for Giardia.
You must excuse the incompleteness of this post, ie no other references, but my own research, with a Dr. Lower has confirmed that 'testing' for giardia is not 100% accruate.

That is the test for giardia must be repeated 4 to 5 times, that is 4 - 5 times before you can rule out the possibility of Giardia.

So the problem is that people suffering from 'the symptoms' get tested once, and if the test is negative, falsely believe that they do not have giardia.

Now the problem is compounded because chronic intestinal problems can lead to a variety of symptoms that we label as 'diseases'.

I will be following up by doing research on the City of Walkerton, referred to as the Walkerton Tragedy whereby animal waste entered the water supply, and going by visual reports on TV, some of the individuals developed MS type symptoms; so the potential of neurological symptoms is very likely.

Question is why is this not being researched and exposed ?

There must be a wealth of knowledge to be gained by this unfortunate experience.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Of the 675 people who submitted stool samples, 57% submitted samples that tested negative for both E. coli and Campylobacter. A negative test result does not necessarily mean the person was not infected. It might also mean that (1) the person had stopped or was intermittently shedding the bacteria, (2) the culture was not tested before the bacteria died, (3) the culture was mishandled, or (4) another pathogen was responsible for the symptoms. Accordingly, it is possible that some or all of the people who tested negative were in fact infected, or had previously been infected."

From the Wakerton report it becomes evident that this important problem with testing has escaped the attention of the general public and some doctors.

My personal research suggests a great deal of suffering is being played out in our society due to this flaw in testing.

I hope someone who has the time will input this information into the appropriate spots.. Thanks

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Walkerton outbreak was of E. coli, not Giardia. Maxpower212 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding boiling of water
There seems to be some inconsistency in the explanaitons of how to kill this nice little creatures. Some says boiling the water kills it, other adds "if you boil the water for three minutes". Anyone here who knows how hard-killed they are? It sounds surprising they should not die in boiling water before three minutes has passed? This article now states just "boiling". I'm really getting curios here... is this wrong, or is the article right as it is? Greswik 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The minimum recommended boiling time is 1 minute at full rolling boil, or 3 minutes if you are more than 2,000 meters above sea level. I believe this is from the CDC, but I am a Giardia and Crypto researcher. Maxpower212 (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Size
A distance scale is needed on the micrograph. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

Something missing in critical recommendation
This succession of words in the article that is close to being a critical recommendation has no verb and is therefore not a sentence and is also not a comprehensible sentence fragment:

Treatment of drinking water for Giardiais not ordinarily indicated in wilderness regions, including much of the Sierra Nevada and other similar locations in North America.

132.239.181.21 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Prevention and Treatment Edit
Under "prevention and treatment," I've added a caveat to the statement that treating wilderness water "is indicated" with the clause that "although at least four researchers disagree with this statement." I sourced all four. They are legitimate people.

This is a byproduct of work I've been doing on "Wilderness Diarrhea," where I've outlined their work more fully. I don't intend to get very involved in this article. It looks pretty good to me, but I'm pretty invested in the other one and making sure that these guys' research gets a fair shake. I have a feeling I'll be contributing to "Water Potability" in a similar manner, and perhaps more extensively than here.Calamitybrook (talk)

Merge?
Just wondering if this page and the one on Giardiasis should be merged or if this one should be just about the critter itself while the giardiasis page is reserved for the infection and all the stuff about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.--209.7.195.158 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be kept separate, there is enough different material for two articles, this one on the biological and veterinary aspects and Giardiasis on the infection in humans.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In reality those two pages are a mishmash of both subjects (the organism vs the infection it causes). They need to be separated more clearly. I'll do it. - Draeco (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitochondria presence/absence contradiction in article
There is a contradiction in the article concerning the presence/absence of mitochondria in Giardia between the Intracellular Metabolism para and the prior para:

''Distinguishing features of the trophozoites are large karyosomes and lack of peripheral chromatin, giving the two nuclei a halo appearance. Cysts are distinguished by a retracted cytoplasm. This protozoan lacks mitochondria, although the discovery of the presence of mitochodrial remnants organelles in one recent study "indicate that Giardia is not primitively amitochondrial and that it has retained a functional organelle derived from the original mitochondrial endosymbiont"[4]''

Intracellular Metabolism and biochemistry

Giardia relies on glucose as its major energy source and breaks glucose down into ethanol, acetate and carbon dioxide.[5] However, it can also use arginine as an energy source.[6] The mitochondria of Giardia possess unique biochemical pathways that suggest that it diverged from other eukaryotes at an early stage in evolution.[6]

....... I am not expert in this, so I'd better not say which I think is right, but the contradictory text should either be tightened up or enlarged/clarified, possibly with an additional section. Punctum (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert either, but I've probed the literature a bit. Giardia seems consistently said not to have mitochondra.  Further, the abstract of the Brown, Upcroft et al. reference used on the second excerpt above does not say it has them, and in fact gives evidence it says supports the lack of mitochondra. Therefore I have removed the mitochondria mention from the pathways statement.  Good catch on your part, Punctum.  -R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you very much for the edit improvement. Looks good. --Punctum (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Beaver Fever? I doubt it
the word "giardia" appears far more frequently on the web than does "beaver fever", and a lot of the beaver fevers are about sports teams and sex. And I would add, "giardiasis" is also a more commonly occuring word than beaver fever, and I never hear anybody say it, people say "he got giardia". The article should say that the common name is giardia. Also mentioning "beaver fever" maybe?... I'm not convinced. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giardia lamblia. 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/20000915204130/http://link.springer-ny.com:80/link/service/journals/00239/bibs/48n6p779.html to http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/00239/bibs/48n6p779.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211132532/http://www.aftenposten.no:80/english/local/article2052645.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2052645.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Name change to Giardia intestinalis
Hello fellow users, I would like to potentially replace the current species name of lamblia with intestinalis as this does appear to be the new common name for the protozoan. Any thoughts? https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/176718-overview

Lharris15328 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move as per NCBI listing. Loopy30 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment hmmmm as best I can tell, these have been synonyms for a while (i.e. this isn't some recent taxonomic change). I haven't looked that hard, but the medscape article you link to above is the only place I see "previously known as..." instead of "also known as...". Some relatively recent reviews in higher profile journals (1, 2) seem to prefer G. intestinalis. Others (1, 2 (sorry that one's paid access), 3 (open access parasitology textbook; new edition came out just this year)) seem to prefer G. lamblia. I'm not convinced either title is technically correct, in more common use, or in any other obvious way superior. But maybe I missed something? Happy to hear anyone else's thoughts... Ajpolino (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment A 2001 review has a fair bit on the naming history, concluding:
 * The species name G. lamblia became widely accepted through the 1970s. Since the 1980s, some have encouraged the use of the name G. duodenalis, and in the 1990s, the name G. intestinalis has been encouraged by other investigators (170). At this time there does not appear to be adequate reason to abandon the term G. lamblia, which has been widely accepted in the medical and scientific literature.
 * Google Scholar estimates 23.8K results for intestinalis and 65.8K results for lamblia; restricting to results of 2008 and later, it gives 15.5K and 22.5K, respectively. Overall, that shows lamblia predominating. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It seems both names have substantial usage, with lamblia remaining more common. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, but doesn't the name G. duodenalis have priority? I also fail to see why Google hits are useful here: where recent name changes have occurred, the bulk of the literature published prior to that change is going to use the older name -doesn't mean the old name is correct. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450
— Assignment last updated by Erinhansonuwec (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)