|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Mention of CCR5-D32 test
I added a link to one provider and it was removed as linkspam with no comment on the discussion here. This happened once before over a year ago with no discussion. Well, here is a discussion. I think links to commercial providers of the subject matter of the article is highly relevant. If no one objects, I will re-add the links. Kevin143 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for not posting here too. I was the one who deleted the mention of a specific company name. As I noted in the edit comment, I think it violates the WP:LINKSPAM policy. (The slippery slope argument that then every other company who does this testing, or any other testing, will find it relevant to put links on this and other pages.) I've seen similar links removed elsewhere (and removed several myself), but I'll happily solicit opinion from a more experienced third-party. Suggestions? Otherwise, we could just post on Wikipedia_talk:SPAM. Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely agree that the fact that commercial companies exist to do this testing is noteworthy. I left the first half of your sentence in there. It now reads Several commercial testing companies offer tests for CCR5-Δ32. Did you want to modify that further? AndrewGNF (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge of CCR5-D32
I don't think every possible mutation of a gene should have its own page. This would fit perfectly in the CCR5 article. --WS 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
this mutation does have special significance since it causes immunity to HIV and is prevalant in people of northern European descent. MattN 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --Bob 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The second reference, while informative and broadly topical, does not support the assertation that the delta mutation does not offer full immunity. A different choice of refrences might b e better. Scrahan 11/26/2006
- "Delta mutation" I don't believe is the proper terminology. The delta symbol simply stands for a "deletion" at the 32bp segment. Nagelfar 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Links to Companies that test for CCR5-D32
Another company FamilyTreeDNA provides CCR5-D32 genetic testing to individual clients for about $30. At present this test can only be ordered as a supplementary test... that is, one must already have had a DNA sample analysed by FamilyTreeDNA, whose primary business is genealogical DNA tests. I'm just wondering if this also warrants being mentioned on the main page for CCR5, in addition to the hivmirror.com company? -- Dapike 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked on their page but I can't find any mention of their CCR5-D32 test.. if you have a link we can add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin143 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
They don't list it as a test that can be ordered by itself. Rather, it's a test that they make available as an upgrade (i.e., to clients who have already done a Y-DNA or mtDNA test). There is mention of the test in their newsletter Dapike (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am a 27 year non or slow progressor, the past 2 years AIDS. CD4 normally 200-300 range but has dipped below 200 thus AIDS. Never taken meds for HIV. I recently found that Hivmirror site and a few others no longer in business. Difficult to find online such labs that offer the test at reasonable cost. Mother's family side presumably from Europe but no info, father's side I have family tree back to Luxembourg 1710. This test although hypothetical in reference to HIV longevity would answer (possibly) why I survived so long. If NO copy of CCR5 altered gene then I must be a wonderboy with excellent immune system. Need a few labs listed as source for test. Hivmirror was shown as being certified per AMA documentation. Any lab referenced should be certified for USA. As for comment not to promote commercial orgs, please give a break... Wiki lists Korbel and other wineries and other companies. Are they not commercial orgs? Lab sources to be listed in this article would not be promotion but references for test-seekers like myself. Labs should also be at Med facilities or be verifiable businesses active at least 5 years, not here today gone tomorrow websites or small business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd researched this a couple of years ago for friends and at that time was told that these tests were no longer available and the issue was tied up in patent litigation. I haven't heard whether any labs will offer or currently offer the CCR5 test again. I was tested in 2000 at the tail end of a research study at UCLA. I suggest you contact HIV research facilities for leads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBliss (talk • contribs) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Separate article for CCR5-D32
I think it's worthwhile to have a separate article for CCR5-D32. As a general reader, I saw "Delta 32 deletion" mentioned in the popular press and searched Wikipedia without success for an article with that name.
An hour later, I finally found this article not through a search but through browsing on the broader topic. The CCR5-D32 sub-section is buried far down the page, and its title is different from the way I had seen Delta-32 referred to in the popular press.
A separate article could be given its own lead with a clearer summary of variant nomenclature, and also would be a more suitable target for redirects.
In general, I hope that professionals writing articles on this topic will remember that they are writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook -- that is, the audience is an educated general reader without broad knowledge of medical terminology. The articles in this series have all been, for me, quite difficult to glean meaningful information from.
Dybryd 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)]]
- I think this is an excellent idea. cyclosarin 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Citation number 14 links to a WSJ article that is no longer valid. It may be important to update the link, if the original article can be found. OTherwise, it may need removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed There was a stray character in the link (it took two seconds of googling to figure this out). Boghog (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Picture of wrong protein in info box
- Never mind, I figured out how to edit the PBB infobox template to remove the pic of CD44 and replace it with the pic of CCR5 (which was further down in the article). SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protein_CD44_PDB_1poz.png picture of CD44 proteine is still used in the first template? (Changed at Template:PBB/1234 by bot User talk:ProteinBoxBot) `a5b (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)