Talk:Virus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Virus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2009.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Edit request on 7 March 2013[edit]

The following sentence (On the basis of her pictures, Rosalind Franklin discovered the full DNA structure of the virus in 1955) should be changed to (On the basis of her pictures, Rosalind Franklin discovered the full structure of the virus in 1955), because TMV is an RNA virus and obviously does not contain any DNA. Source #28 says the same thing, too. Thanks! OpossumK (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this error; I corrected the article. Graham Colm (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetic drift[edit]

The section Genome says: "Viruses undergo genetic change by several mechanisms. These include a process called genetic drift where individual bases in the DNA or RNA mutate to other bases." I wonder if genetic drift should be changed for antigenic drift.--Miguelferig (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have edited the article accordingly and updated the references. Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation / transcription[edit]

In History the article says: " Reverse transcriptase, the key enzyme that retroviruses use to translate their RNA into DNA". I think it is better to say reverse transcription instead of translation. Translation is used when we are speaking about production of proteins, and transcription when we are speaking about nucleic acids.--Miguelferig (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This would be too technical. When you say "we", who do have in mind? Not the general reader I think. It would be better to add "this is called reverse transcription" rather than introduce and unexplained technical term that would require a distracting link. Graham Colm (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a native speaker, so my English is not perfect. My biology is better than my English. But I insist, transcription (or just copy) is better than translation in that sentence because translation has a specific meaning in molecular biology.--Miguelferig (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You suggested "reverse transcription", which would be gobbledegook to most readers. I prefer my suggestion. Graham Colm (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I have recast the sentence to "Reverse transcriptase, the enzyme that retroviruses use to make DNA copies of their RNA, was first described in 1970, independently by Howard Martin Temin and David Baltimore." This avoids both words. Graham Colm (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Virus as a weapon[edit]

Please change line 3 "There are officially[clarify] only two centers in the world that keep stocks of smallpox virus" at Wikipedia article "Virus: Applications - Weapons" where an edit has requested clarification with a reference to WHO smallpox page, the website of the World Health Organisation where it confirms this detail. Edit made 86.184.201.72 (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done I've added the info on the WHO, but the clarify tag was actually asking for information on any unofficial stockpiles of virus so I've moved it down to the next sentence which mentions possible weapons use. — Reatlas (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Add atmospheric vectorization[edit]

Please consider adding "atmospheric vectorization" to the various ways that virals can be transported. Just as mercury, bacteria (bacteria contain viruses as you know well), pollen, and other particles are held aloft and transported, we need to add virals to the list of many particles that are transported across the globe in the atmospheric currents. Thank you for your consideration. This reference adds to the details of the other references: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1900246/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). talk70.117.15.112 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The authors only speculate on the possibility - there is no proof that viruses are present in the upper atmosphere. Graham Colm (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So is there a way to maybe mention that there is scientific evidence being gathered about this? Here's more research that mention this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111110094832.htmCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.15.112 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BALL Graham Colm (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please consider adding "atmospheric vectorization" to the various ways that virals can be transported. Just as mercury and other particles are held aloft and transported, we need to add virals to the list of many particles that are transported across the globe in the atmospheric currents. Thank you for your consideration User:Megerler 25 Oct 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this? Graham Colm (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
http://www.mercury.utah.gov/atmospheric_transport.htm is a source of reference to the movement of aerosols. Thanks for considering this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megerler (talkcontribs) 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That source only mentions mercury. This source is about viruses [1] and there is a good summary of the source here [2]. However, this is just one primary study about viruses in the air near the ground. We need a reliable, secondary source about transmission of viruses in the upper atmosphere. The high levels of ultraviolet radiation at higher levels probably inactivate most viruses, which, by the way, are millions of times larger than atoms of mercury. To add "atmospheric vectorization" we need a secondary source to back this up. Lastly, please remember to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is another of many sources that describe absolute evidence of atmospheric microbes (virions are microbes as well): http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/01/27/study-finds-substantial-microorganism-populations-upper-troposphere Hope this helps my idea on the matter User:Megerler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.15.112 (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And some others: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080228/full/news.2008.632.html http://www.livescience.com/26533-loads-of-bacteria-hiding-out-in-storm-clouds.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228174801.htm User:Megerler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.15.112 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I figured it out70.117.15.112 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no specific mention of viruses in any of these sources. Graham Colm (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for prodding me to add proof of this concept. Many people do not understand this. My background is in engineering and my current studies are in medicine. Reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1900246/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). talk70.117.15.112 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014[edit]

2602:306:B89E:1470:8862:72CF:7A2B:152A (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)