Talk:HIV

Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa

Would anyone object if I hid or removed this list in the taxobox? It doesn't seem very relevant as none of the other lentiviruses falls under the title of human immunodeficiency viruses. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose they are there because they are all classified as Lentiviruses.[1] I don't know what "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded" means. The same list is on the Lentivirus page but HIV2 is missing.Graham Beards (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a general term from the new automated tree of life taxobox. I have yet to see a place where its use appeared necessary, but might be looking at a biased sample. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. I can't see the point (of the expression) at all. On the other hand it is useful to see that animals have their own burden of HIV-like viruses.Graham Beards (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how HIV-like they are; as I recall, say visna-maedi virus is very different from HIV in effects and sequence. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll check my books. May I get back to you tomorrow?Graham Beards (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

They all seem pretty similar. The visna particles are morphologically the same and their replication is similar to HIV. The genome has gag, pol and env. I wouldn't say that they are "very different". I think it safe to say that the are HIV-like.Graham Beards (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Er, all retroviruses have gag, pol and env, don't they?? The template editor has just provided some useful customisation hints at the talk page, which might improve the situation, especially in regard of changing the heading. ETA: I have changed it to read "Other lentiviruses" as a first stab; personally I'd prefer to default to hiding the list to avoid butting into the table in the first non-lead section. Is this really such key information it wants to be so prominent in the article? If so, why aren't the lentiviruses listed in the section "Classification"? Wouldn't this information fit better as a table there? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I don't really understand the issue. Visna is certainly HIV-like in terms of genome organisation, replication strategy and sequence homology (although I have forgotten the percentage). It's pathology is different of course but that's not enough to say it is "very different from HIV". I agree with there being a table; in many example these TaxoBoxes are terribly cluttered. Perhaps some editors regard the boxes as an end in themselves rather than an asset to the article.Graham Beards (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

ADD THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO TRANSMISSION SECTION OF HIV Genital Herpes (HSV-2) reactivation in those infected with the virus have an associated increase in CCR-5 enriched CD4+ T cells as well as inflammatory dendritic cells in the submucosa of the genital skin. Tropism of HIV for CCR-5 positive cells explains the two to threefold increase in HIV acquisition among persons with genital herpes. Daily antiviral (e.g. acyclovir) medication do not reduce the sub-clinical post reactivation inflammation and therefore does not confer reduced risk of HIV acquisition

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723183/ PMID: 19648930 EricIDMD (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

​That's a primary study, this would need a review article or similar, see WP:MEDRS. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Reopened edit request, EricIDMD has pointed out this review article: We found evidence that HSV-2 infection increases the risk of HIV acquisition. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 23:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

update and replace date of origin protected article

REPLACE Genetic studies of the virus suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the HIV-1 M group dates back to circa 1910.[156] WITH Genetic studies of the virus suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the HIV-1 M group dates back to circa 1920 (1915–25).[156] UPDATE REFERENCE 156 WITH: https://academic.oup.com/ve/article/5/2/vez036/5561482 WHICH SUggesgts scientific consensus is this later date now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

They report a range of (1915–25) which is close to 1910. We need to see more sources to support a change.Graham Beards (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

They report that the conventional view is 15-25, which they are confirming with their paper. I want to avoid OR and synthesis on this. ALso look at viral clock on coronaviruses and influenza and you will see the dates have changed in the last 5 years as science has improved.

I also think pre WWI and post WWI are quite significant.

We need to see more sources to support a change.Graham Beards (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello @Graham Beards: and please excuse my weak english

I'm in the midst of translating this article to Arabic, and there is a sentence in the section Tropism i couldn't understand:

A number of studies with subtype B-infected individuals have determined that between 40 and 50 percent of AIDS patients can harbour viruses of the SI and, it is presumed, the X4 phenotypes[55][56]

my question is: isn't SI HIV-1 Viruses called X4 as stated above in the same section, and if yes what is the meaning intended by the sentence "harbour viruses of the SI and, it is presumed, the X4 phenotypes". thank you.--Momas (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a good question. It means, as far as I can tell since I didn't write it, that the strains were shown to be syncytia inducing by experiment but the phenotypes were never confirmed and are thus presumed to have been X4. Graham Beards (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: sorry to bother you again, but that dose not make sense -to me-. bieng syncytia inducing or not is the phenotype of the strains (R5 or X4 or X4R5) according to the reference [56] quote : "more T cell-tropic HIV-1 variants, in particular those with the SI phenotype, may become detectable only as a consequence of increased virus load."

could the meaning be: "40 and 50 percent of AIDS patients can harbour viruses of both SI and NSI phenotypes" because the reference mentions NSI to SI phenotype conversion over time? --Momas (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to read the reference in full. Graham Beards (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were asking about the meaning of "presumed to have been X4" in this context. The paper by Karlsson et al. requires a payment to read it, so I haven't. The paper by Koot et al. does not give the "40 to 50%" range but the authors have shown that both SI and NSI phenotypes were present in some cases and that the proportion of SI variants increased in parallel with the viral load. Depending on what it says in the Karlsson paper, I think your interpretation is probably correct. In any case, the exact range is not that important. What is important is that in a substantial proportion of cases both phenotypes are present.Graham Beards (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you very much for your replies,Have a nice day --Momas (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: text neutrality, English pronoun use

Gender-neutral English pronouns for discussing transmission of HIV through breastmilk, and generally within motherhood, are more accurate, such as in:

"...Non-sexual transmission can occur from an infected mother to her infant during pregnancy, during childbirth by exposure to her blood or vaginal fluid, and through breast milk..."

Which is more correctly:

"...Non-sexual transmission can occur from an infected parent to their infant during pregnancy, during childbirth by exposure to their blood or vaginal fluid, and through breast milk..."

Considering that HIV transmission in the context of pregnancy is emphatically due to the presence of a uterus, vagina, and mammary tissue allowing for breast feeding, it is regardless of one's personal pronouns. A person identifying with feminine pronouns (she/her/hers) may not have a uterus (due to surgical removal or physical (congenital, otherwise) birth condition(s)), and likewise some individuals with masculine pronouns (he/him/his) may have such organs and tissue. A more accurate change to this article would be amending all instances of pronoun use (excepting those references to specific known identities, e.g., Françoise Barré-Sinoussi) to be general instead.

Pekowaffer (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: unfortunately, this would be against the accepted consensus regarding the use of that language on Wikipedia, see WP:GENDER and how it is treated in articles such as Mother and Pregnancy. We generally refer to "mother" (or in that same token "male") in the biological sense, rather than as a parent that uses feminine pronouns.

We also use gendered language where it provides clarity, for instance referring to a mother as a "woman" or referring to mothers with feminine rather than neutral pronouns. The two cases where alterations could be made in this article are "Non-sexual transmission can occur from an infected mother to her infant during pregnancy" and "Both X4 and R5 HIV are present in the seminal fluid, which enables the virus to be transmitted from a male to his sexual partner". In both cases "their" could probably be substituted for "her" and "his" without suffering too great of a loss of clarity or fluidity, but I think I'll leave it as is because a) that is the language most commonly used throughout Wikipedia, b) it does seem to read more smoothly as written, and c) it is generally better to leave content as is and establish consensus before making a potentially contentious edit. Feel free to continue discussing this if you still disagree, though. Volteer1 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

I wanna put more information into it 182.255.118.210 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DanCherek (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

Could the co-discoverer picture be replaced with a multiple image? Here's the code you could use.

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, Robert Gallo, and Luc Montagnier, co-discoverers of HIV

74.98.192.38 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)