Talk:Pus

Black pus

Weren't there instances in Black Plague victims where the pus had a foul odor and had a blackish color?

That more likely refers to the gangrene that the disease can cause (black, necrotic flesh). The pus is usually yellowish-green with an awful odor. Collabi 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The black pus was actually blood "clots"--75.155.134.185 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Phyo- or Pyocyanin?

Is it Phyo- or Pyocyanin. Other Wikipedia-articles use mainly pyocyanin.

• It's pyo. This article needs lots of fixing up. I'll help when i have some more free time. In the meantime I'll add a tag.--164.77.106.168 User:guruclef 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pus in Milk

What is the substantiation to this claim? The only people putting it forth that I can see are the highly biased PETA and people citing them. Is the claim based on the idea that all somatic cells must be pus (which is ridiculous since "somatic cell" just means "cell with a nucleus")? Is there any peer-reviewed paper actually supporting the claim that milk contains dead infectious tissue? Collabi 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The only reason that anyone would talk about pus in milk is because they are an "animal-rights" extremist (such as a PeTA zealot). It's an effective tactic because of the superficial similarity between milk and pus. --Loundry 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an animal rights proponent by any means, but I work in the dairy industry and have studied animal science. It is possible for pus to be found in milk, if the cow (or other mammal) is sick. The dairy industry measures 'somatic cell count' or SCC in milk to determine the quality of the milk. In an animal with an infection, such as mastitis, the SCC will be higher than usual. This is a reaction to an infection, and the somatic cells in this case are composed of the same cells that pus is composed of. However, normal cows also have a measurable SCC and not all somatic cells are pus, as mentioned above. If the editors decide to instate/reinstate this section, I will be happy to provide references.

In the mean time, there is a small grammatical error in the last paragraph. I can't edit it, but "produces" should be changed to "produce"

222.123.50.154 (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Graphic pus video

The collection of youtube videos that are linked to the article are extremely graphic. Do you think there should be a little text warning next to the link, or is it just a given that 'pus video' won't be... pleasant? --GloBrite 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You do need an over-18 sign-up for most of them but the userpage has one on their page which isn't flagged so anyone can see this first one. Obviously gross and as it runs without over-18 signup I guess it's nice to flag it with something like,

The following link contains graphical depictions of human anatomy. Please read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.

The text I cribbed from Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer itself. Usually though this'll attract attention ! but at least we can say that we didn't warn you and here is a link to the Wikipedia disclaimer. I do think the videos are informational; somewhere in storage I have photos of my wife's breast abscess when she got problems with breastfeeding our first child, which had pus like large green caterpillars but these videos beat that any day in the volume. Ttiotsw 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Pus in birds

Abscesses in birds (and I think also reptiles) have a different kind of "pus", which is solid rather than liquid – it's cheesy in texture, though smelling similar to mammalian pus. Is this still pus, or is there another technical term? If so, this (and any other veterinary variations) should be covered in the article. --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image?

Without going into the realm of the disgusting, could an image meybe be added? Perhaps an image under a microscope, to show the mix of different components. Gront (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would pus from acne work?LeeRamsey (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 Doneα§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)}}

The current image is very blurry. I can't even tell whether it really is pus. I suggest it be replaced (but I have no image to replace it with). digfarenough (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pus Scabs

It is possible for pus to form scabs on the wounds they ooze out of?

Yes. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually I think it's more matter of scabs will form from the normal scarring process, which happens independently from pus formation. Pus does not preclude scabs or scarring but it also doesn't "form" the scabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.85.105 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

While the image is indeed of pus, is there an image taken for medical purposes which can be used here? I am a layman, but I guess there are certain things those photos have to do, like illustrate "characteristic features" (as defined by medical professionals? Again, I don't know). 118.90.42.87 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion; but regarding the caption, didn't he mean "exuding" (oozing), not "extruding"?? Or is there a true physical pushing out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.100.18.4 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pyogenic merge

I think that pyogenic should be redirected to pus. Pyogenic infection deserves its own article, but "pyogenic" is just a descriptive term for pus. For example, see how pruritic redirects to itch, and pyrogenic redirects to fever. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not merge it with pyogenic infection? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In its strictest sense, pyogenic just means pus generating, but I am ok with redirecting to pyogenic infection since I think an infection is necessary for pus. I was just wary since I am not 100% certain that pus has to be from an infection. (As a side note, would we need a separate article for pyogenic infection if pus is the same thing?) Can't trauma and insertion of a foreign object cause pus - due to something like a splinter (assuming no associated infection)? I also noticed that purulent and suppurative have been redirected to pus rather than pyogenic infection. Finally, I don't know what the deal is with pyogenic granuloma, but it is not from an infection. Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should double check about pus being solely created by infection. Although I am not 100% sure as well and will have to look into it, I think some situations exist where pus is generated through other means. I am not able to recall, but perhaps its through an autoimmune process. AriaNo11 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'd be happy to hear what you figure out about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pus is generally comprised of debris from necrotic neutrophils. This is what gives it its color. Pus being generated with out an immune response of some sort seems unlikely as the nuetrophils are less likely to die. In hypersensitive reactions of the lung we do occasionally see a build up of mucus, which may be confused for pus. These reactions however are moderated by mast and eosinophils (Asthma). It is not uncommon for excess mucus to be generated in absence of a infection (asthma, cystic fibrosis, chronic bronchitis secondary to cigarette smoking). One lung disorders mediated by neutrophils (as well as macrophages) that has no over lying infection is smoking related emphysema. We do not see pus here either unless there is an over lying infection. I can not tell you with a 100% definitive answer but it seems unlikely to have pus with out an active infection that has virulence factors causing the destruction of neutrophils. As for the "sterile splinter" in the lung idea, I don't know how the body would react - the complications of the foreign object would guarantee an infection. jkatsis2 (talk) 12:49, 23 october 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.126.187 (talk)

I merged the articles and cleaned it up Richard☺Decal (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Who kills whom?

In this article, we say

At the site of infection, the neutrophils engulf and kill bacteria. Eventually, the neutrophils die

without saying why the neutrophils die. In pyogenic it says

The pus is mostly composed of dead neutrophils that are destroyed by bacteria such as Streptococcus pyogenes and Staphylococcus aureus through the release of leukocidins

without saying why (or if) the bacteria die.

So who kills whom? Do the neutrophils kill the bacteria, or do the bacteria kill the neutrophils? AxelBoldt (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Both. After a bit of time on Google, this is what I found out. Neutrophils have a very short life and even if they are not killed by pathogens at the infection site, senescent (old) neutrophils will undergo normal apoptosis (programmed cell death) and subsequent phagocytosis. I agree the article is unclear on this point and should be re-worded. "Eventually, the neutrophils die" can be changed to something like "neutrophils are killed by pathogens, or by apoptosis a result of reaching the end of their naturally short life cycle".

Unfortunately my understanding of biology is limited and as such I'm not 100% sure I'm correctly interpreting the research I found on Google. If anyone wants to develop this further, I found some semi-relevant info @ Neutrophils: Molecules, Functions and Pathophysiological Aspects under I.D.2. Apoptosis in Resolution of Inflammation and more relevant stuff here (At sites of tissue inflammation, neutrophils eventually become apoptotic and are ultimately phagocytosed by macrophages. It has been proposed that apoptosis of such tissue neutrophils occurs as a consequence of their phagocytosis of bacteria and bacterial products) and here (Senescent human neutrophils undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis), leading to their recognition and phagocytosis by mature macrophages.)

tl;dr: if pus is made of dead neutrophils, how did these immune cells meet their fate? Is it just by natural apoptosis due to their short life cycles, or as a consequence of their phagocytosis of pathogens as suggested above, or as a result of being killed by said pathogens? If someone can confirm that I'm correct, I'll be BOLD fix up that paragraph. DubiousIrony ^yell 10:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Image of afflicted eyeball, remove or replace?

The sight of eye trauma can cause readers to recoil and be unable to read the entry. At least, this is the effect that image has on me. There is no getting around the fact that whatever the image, it will be "gross", but it could only help the matter if the image didn't add "eye horror" into the equation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.216.204 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, random grotesque photos of injuries with pus somewhere in them add absolutely nothing to the article. The only imaginable images that might be interesting are, as was contemplated upthread, a microscope image of pus, or perhaps a textbook illustration of its composition. Removing. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:B959:335B:31EE:426 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)