Talk:Rotavirus

10 or 9 species

According to the ICTV there is only 9 species of rotavirus : A-J (without E): https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/ or https://talk.ictvonline.org/files/master-species-lists/m/msl/9601

Does anyone know whether species E still applies? --Julius Senegal (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I never saw the reasons the ICTV gave for dropping E. Is it a mistake in their list perhaps. RVE is found in pigs, albeit rarely. Graham Beards (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Rotavirus E history says it was abolished with the 2019 taxonomy release. According to the Word document, it was abolished because there are no sequence data or isolates of Rotavirus E. E may exist but officially there are 9 species. Velayinosu (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Hence this should be corrected, or clarified that RVE has not been isolated yet? --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the text to: "There are nine species of the genus, referred to as A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I and J. Rotavirus A, the most common species, causes more than 90% of rotavirus infections in humans. Rotavirus E, which is seen in pigs, has not been confirmed as a distinct species." Graham Beards (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Types of Rotavirus

Hi,

I am thinking to explain more about the specific types of the Rotavirus. I made some edits as well, but were reverted back due to some formatting issues. Can I include the history of the types in their particular section or it goes in the history section of the main article. Any more suggestions that i need to keep in mind while providing details about specific types. I have data about the primary characteristics of these types and their detection techniques. Also, kindly let me know about the issues on my last edit user: Graham Beards. Sidhujupinder (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The information was already in the Epidemiology section. Your additions were not an improvement. There were spelling and grammatical errors and the citations you added were old and inconsistently formatted. Extensive descriptions of group B rotavirus (and group C rotaviruses, which you did not mention) is not justified. See WP:BALASP. If you have anything new to add, it would be best to discuss it here first. Graham Beards (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

rotavirus types

Should I put new information about the rotaviruses under the section of epidemiology or create another section for it ? Sidhujupinder (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What new information do you want to add? Graham Beards (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I plan to add information about pathogenicity and history of origin of rotavirus species A-J separately. I saw species A and B has some information provided but the others are missing. Sidhujupinder (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the article would be improved by adding that, but you can add you proposed text here and we can discuss this. Graham Beards (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

URLs redundant with identifier

To answer the question about my edit (sorry about not seeing it earlier): those URLs are redundant because the DOI already conveys the same information (where to locate the work in the publisher's website) and because the template already takes care of linkifying the title.

Also, at least [1] looks broken here (bad HTTPS certificate); the existing link doi:10.1093/ije/dyn260 reaches the intended destination which is, I presume, [2]. Nemo 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

They reach different destinations. One goes to the abstract the other goes directly to the PDF. Graham Beards (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and an URL which only returns an error is different from one which works, but that doesn't mean the broken URL should stay. Do you think the URL should be [3]? What should be done the next time this URL also breaks?

In my opinion the most important thing is that the full text of the work be easily accessible. The autolinked PMC2800782 achieves that and provides the same full text as [4], with the added benefit of being a more stable and reliable URL. The academic.oup.com URLs are extremely unpredictable: for instance this one either redirects to some silverchair.com IIS server or returns an HTTP 403 error if it doesn't like the user's network (like the Tor network), so it's rather user-hostile to have such an URL in our pages.

If you want to manually maintain the links to the full text, I don't mean to step on your toes. (Thanks for adding those in the first place! I also appreciate direct links to PDFs whenever possible.) You can also add doi-access=free to clarify that those URLs are actually open access, as it seems to be the case right now. The OAbot tool can help you with that on some pages.

Let me know what's your preference and I'll try to follow it. Nemo 15:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Primary study

This is a primary study which we avoid in medical articles (see WP:MEDRS).

Wahyuni RM, Utsumi T, Dinana Z, Yamani LN, Juniastuti, Wuwuti IS, Fitriana E, Gunawan E, Liang Y, Ramadhan F, Soetjipto, Lusida MI, Shoji I (2021). "Prevalence and Distribution of Rotavirus Genotypes Among Children With Acute Gastroenteritis in Areas Other Than Java Island, Indonesia, 2016-2018". Frontiers in Microbiology. 12: 672837. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.672837. PMC 8137317. PMID 34025628.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The statement is already fully supported by the Suzuki (2019) review and another citation is redundant. Graham Beards (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

SA11 not a single strain

According to NCBI taxonomy and also the Matthijnssens paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556306/) there are several substrains of SA11, fortunately with similar antigenic signature. SCIdude (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)