Talk:Ebola virus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Viruses (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I merged the EHF article with this but I'm not sure it was the right thing. Is it not better to have seperate, linked articles, one on the disease the other on the virus rather than one merged article. This was demonstrated by the original opening article line "the Ebola virus is a severe, often fatal disease...", no it isn't - it is a virus, it causes a disease.

Certainly Ebola Sudan and Zaire should be redirects. I would prefer the information to be under EHF. Unless there are any objections I'll do the moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40:09, 17 june 2002 (UTC)

Moved!— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 9:28:03, 17 jun 2002 (UTC)


I'm wondering why Ebola virus gets redirected to Ebola. It should be the other way around. And also, I think Ebola virus and Ebola hemorrhagic fever should be two separate articles as one is the virus and the other is the disease it causes. Any objections? If not I would like to move around the redirects. Andrewr47 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You should include a link to this section, which describes the entry mechanism[edit]

NPC1#Ebola_virus --Biggerj1 (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of issues[edit]

  1. The term "EBOV VP30" is used in Virology/Structure without previous definition.
  2. The article "Klenk & Feldmann, 2004" is cited multiple times, but the the internal links don't exist.

Tim (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Random Text?[edit]

Someone wrote "On the chart, it's 50% not 55%" near the end of the article. I'm not sure if this is vandalism, or someone was trying to make a suggestion about the chart and put it in the wrong place, or what. Also it says "virPENIS" above. (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


The assertion garcinia is "suspected of" able to stop replication of the virus relies almost entirely on a 15-year-old BBC article. A careful reading of that lede reveals no in vivo trials were conducted, and a careful web search reveals no other scientific supporting information has been generated since 1999, although anecdotal and wholly unsupported assertions proliferate on homeopathic websites.Nickrz (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I flagged it as dubious (twice). Since nobody has come forward to defend that statement being included, it's probably time to remove it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:RSMED#Popular press gives good guidance here. I'll remove the statement. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
As a rather unfortunate example of misleading info floating around the internet, rumours of this "treatment" are now spreading around West Africa, prompting suspicion that Western aid workers are withholding treatment and allowing people to make money out of fake cures. Curiously, there is another Nigerian study which also makes claims as to its potential value as a treatment for another condition - Donners (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


What is "19 kb" in the context of virus length? Can the "kb" be cross-ref'd to its relevant article? Tomgg (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It means kilo-bases, number of DNA nucleotides. See Kilobase#Length_measurements. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks---that was so efficient! Tomgg (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What is this article actually about?[edit]

The intro suggests this article is about the "Zaire ebolavirus" species, yet the Types section suggests its about Ebola viruses generally. If that's the intention, perhaps some of the information should be moved to the Ebolavirus article. However, if it is in fact about the "Zaire" species, shouldn't it have that as its article name? Evercat (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten, but the title is correct. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So... what's the answer? Is it about the "Zaire" species or about Ebola viruses generally? If the former, the "Types" section should at least be renamed to "related viruses" or something. Also, why do we prefer this title to Zaire ebolavirus, which is a term used by WHO, for example? Evercat (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Evercat, your question is justified. To me, it looks like the article is about the genus Ebolavirus with its 5 species, including the most talked about Zaire ebolavirus. I assume preference of the title is because the 5 species share a lot of resemblance; to me it makes sense to put them together until much more is known about each species, which would allow us to break them out into different pages.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There's already an Ebolavirus article for the genus, though. Evercat (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The name Ebola virus is the original name of the virus. There is a difference between a virus and a species. Media outlets have blurred things for years. The ICTV has reaffirmed this nomenclature:

  • Family: Filoviridae
  • Genus: Ebolavirus
  • Species: Tai Forest ebolavirus
  • Virus: Tai Forest virus (formerly Cote d’Ivoire ebolavirus)
  • Species: Reston ebolavirus
  • Virus: Reston virus
  • Species: Sudan ebolavirus
  • Virus: Sudan virus
  • Species: Zaire ebolavirus
  • Virus: Ebola virus
  • Species: Bundibugyo ebolavirus
  • Virus: Bundibugyo virus

Hope this helps. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, and @Evercat: regarding the naming, this is what I found. Taken from our discussion: "...from page 18 of this taxonomy revision proposal used as a source in the articles: 'Here, we rectify this situation by recommending that the traditional virus name (“Ebola virus”) be used. Retrospectively, the virus nomenclature in most published articles will then be correct. Likewise, press articles, which almost invariably refer to “Ebola virus,” and usually with that term aim at referring to the virus that is currently officially named “Zaire ebolavirus,” will be correct retrospectively and prospectively.'" Is that agreed, or does the WHO's use of the previous name call this into question? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The WHO does not determine virus nomenclature. The correct name is Ebola virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
ICTV doesn't assign any subspecies level names, and explicitly rejected a request to do so. The proposed names headed "Virus:" are a construct of Kuhn et al., and may be entirely reasonable, but they lack any ICTV endorsement. The family, genus, and species names on the other hand have been adopted by ICTV. See also the discussion at the bottom of the page. Dragons flight (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Virus illustration very poorly informative[edit]

The natural dissymmetry of the virion makes its visual interpretation difficult enough. To present the CDC micrograph as the one image without a schematic anywhere to make its interpretation possible is a pedagogic mistake. One opinion. See expasy image, for an example of something that works ([1]). Le Prof (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a freely-available (not copyright-protected) image we can use, by all means upload it to wikimedia, we'd love to have it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sole member?[edit]

What does it mean for a species to be "the sole member" of a species? Aren't the designations Zaire ebolavirus and Ebola virus simply synonyms?  --Lambiam 06:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Some viral "species" have one "virus", but others have several. For instance, the species Marburg marburgvirus has two virus (Marburg virus and Ravn virus), but the species Zaire ebolavirus has just one (Ebola virus). It depends on the percentage of nucleotidic difference of the strains.Miguelferig (talk)
Thanks. So if I understand this correctly, there is apparently a taxonomic rank "virus" below "species" which is essentially different from the notion of "subspecies" (since a species can never have just one subspecies). This taxonomic rule is encyclopedic information and should be reported on somewhere on Wikipedia, but also in International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses#Rules for taxa the lowest rank mentioned is "virus".  --Lambiam 21:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no official nomenclature below species, with subgroupings described variously (and often interchangeably) as subspecies, subtypes, variants and "virus" types. Genetically distinct individual viruses are identified as strains. ICTV does not officially assign any nomenclature below the species level. Dragons flight (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Airborne variant exists (???)[edit]

This section should be deleted or moved. It is about Reston virus (a different Ebolavirus). It should be moved to Reston virus's page and, if possible, rewritten.-Miguelferig (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. It has already been put on Reston virus as well as on Filoviridae Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed that info form all articles (the same two parragraphs was in 4 articles, with this one), incfluding Reston article because I doubt the cited source claims Ebola/Reston can be spread by air means. You can discuse ti in the Reston article talk page: NaSz (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

don`t be to quick with deleting the airborne question

Ebola Airborne Information by the Center for Infectious Diease Research and Policy (CIDRAP)

"Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings."

Yes We Can ... ...Die (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Accent on the "might". They don't say it is. You might check out Snopes' comments on that claim: [2] . Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola in the Air Tonight

My common sense tells me that it`s no mather if Ebola is as highly airborne as those that cause measles and chickenpox. Even when it is only „light“ airborne it`s enough if you`re sitting next to a nice, infected nurse on an intercontinental flight for hours.

You say spread of the virus via coughing or sneezing is rare, where ist he evidence for this statement? You might check out this famously Mythbuster SloMo. (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Airborne-Transmission of Ebola virus from pigs

What do you think about this sientific research? It was well planed and accomplished. Scientific Reports,Published 15 November 2012

This is the first report of experimental interspecies virus transmission, with the macaques also used as a human surrogate.

All macaques became infected without direct contact.

They also have previously demonstrated that Ebola (ZEBOV) can infect pigs, cause disease, and transmit to in-contact pigs.

Experiment: Objects: Six four-week old Landrace piglets, cynomolgus macaques

The macaques were housed in two levels of individual cages inside the pig pen, and separated from the piglets by wire barrier in front of the bottom cages to prevent direct contact between the two species. The exhaled air were taken from the piglets to the macaques by normal room ventilation.

All animal manipulations were performed under CL4 conditions and followed Animal Use Document No. CSCHAH AUD# C-11-004.

Covenant242 (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that it was not in humans. Also please read WP:MEDRS. We use high quality secondary sources such as those by the CDC and WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You belive, this scientific report is not a high quality sources?

Who you belive then ?

Monkeys were deliberately used as a substitute for human subjects. Thus, the explanatory power about the transferability of the results is valid to humans. When humans and monkeys are killed in the same manner by the Ebola virus, the infection in humans and monkeys is done in the same way. The work was filed on April 25, 2012, then checked & reviewed and published later in November 2012. It was made by credible canadian scientist, not from creationistic idiots.

Covenant242 (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS. What happens in other primates does not necessarily happen in people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Guinea pigs from death row

You are very skeptical, aren`t you? I`ve delivered so much good and checkable scientific information,

and you say you don’t belive this … and you don’t think that necessarily happen that …

If you stand beside a monkey that would be struck down by a bullet you`ve never seen before, would you then also say: „What happens to other primates, does not necessarily happen to me?“

And I will bet --- you will not.

The kind of evidence you thinking about, can only be delivered if we ask Rick Perry for some guys from death row and then put them, instead of the apes, into the cages. Would that change your belives then?

By the way, you are lack of delivering your proof, that sneezing could not infect other humans ;-)

Covenant242 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we go with high quality secondary sources like WHO and the CDC. This is how Wikipedia works. We do not give much weight to primary sources and should give no weight to the popular press. We are about verifiability not about truth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
WP is defintiely not obligated to use only official government sources. That is not at all the way WP works. The standard is given at WP:RS. There is a LOT that the WHO and CDC never say or at least not until it has been exhaustively analyzed by other sources. For instance Reuters, BBC, NYT, Wash Post, are not too shabby for news outlets. Books by authors like Lurie Garrett are "popular" but WP:RS.Wikidgood (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS specifically says not to use the popular press for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Survival time?[edit]

How long does the virus survive outside a host? Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

50 days and nights - awesome
--The solitary german (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 °C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days. This information is based on experimental findings only and not based on observations in nature." Yes, biological organisms do tend to last for a while when you properly prepare and refrigerate them. Xqxf (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
What about ordinary dessication? Abductive (reasoning) 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

German Wikipedia - invaluable informations (thank you guys)[edit]

By comparing the German Wikipedia article with our english version, you can see that there is much more & detailed information available. They have found unbelievable good sources, but the most is in german language – can anybody translate to fill our lack of knowledge?

For example the germans have linked a PATHOGEN SAFETY DATA SHEET [3]from the Public Health Agency of Canada. We should transfer this invaluable information.

INFECTIOUS DOSE: Viral hemorrhagic fevers have an infectious dose of 1 - 10 organisms by aerosol in non-human primates.

SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces, particularly at low temperatures (4°C). When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 °C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days.

SOURCES/SPECIMENS: Blood, serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, semen, and organs or their homogenates from human or animal hosts. Human or animal hosts, may represent a further source of infection

PHYSICAL INACTIVATION: Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60°C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde. Ebolavirus has also been determined to be moderately sensitive to UVC radiation.

-- (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New section proposal and draft in progress: Mutagenicity[edit]

A paramount concern to clinicians is the capacity of Ebola virus to mutate...Nat Geo Yes I know there are more "scientific" RS but this one is solidly secondary and reliable. Wikidgood (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

→I think this is a good idea however i am not sure how much literature/research there is on the topic. AMMedStudent (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014[edit]

Ëbola is not a good thing if u have ebola call or go to the nearness hospital (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Ebola is not a good thing, but this is not a good edit request either. Please request a specific change. Xqxf (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned on CNN[edit]

This article was mentioned extremely favorably on CNN, along with the fact that the page was currently protected so that only the most qualified "professionals" can edit it. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature and focus problems[edit]

Kuhn et al., widely cited in the current article, proposed creating a new subdivision "Virus: Ebola virus" within "Species: Zaire ebolavirus", based around the Zaire ebolavirus type strain. Similar "Virus:" designations were also proposed for the other Ebolaviruses. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) explicitly rejected this proposal, on the grounds that "Virus" is not a recognized taxonomic rank they do not officially designate any names below the species level. They continue to recommend that the species "Zaire ebolavirus" be used, and don't assign any formal taxonomic meaning to "Ebola virus". The current lead suggests that "Zaire ebolavirus" is a former name of the entity discussed here, but the ICTV would obviously disagree. Even if Kuhn et al.'s proposal were accepted in full, Zaire ebolavirus still wouldn't be a former rank since the proposal intended to retain the existing species and create a novel "Virus" rank within it.

This creates all sorts of issues with the current article. When we say "Ebola virus" do we mean it as a synonym to "Zaire ebolavirus", as a subdivision within that species (i.e. Kuhn et al.), or in fact as a discussion of the larger class of Ebola viruses (e.g. genus: Ebolavirus)? Right now the article is a gross mixture of all three, conflating information about the larger group, with information about Zaire ebolavirus in particular, alongside information specific to Kuhn et al.'s proposed nomenclature. Dragons flight (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

us patent[edit]

We spotted some irrelevant comment. If one have a argument please elaborate what part of the information may be improved to perfection.

Patent ca2741523a1 invention is related to compositions and methods directed to a novel species of human Ebola[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014[edit]

Although the FDA has not approved any vaccine for use in human trials, the military does not have to follow the FDA protocol. Human testing has already been done as far back as 2003. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). </ref> (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done not sure what changes you are requesting, also out of the 3 links only the Baltimore Sun is a reliable source. Cannolis (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014[edit]

External link : Ebola : replication - virus mutation of the virus / Interview with Eric Leroy, research director in IRD and director of CIRMF in Gabon Markiw (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarity re. "Ebola virus is the single member of the species Zaire ebolavirus"[edit]

"Ebola virus is the "single member" of the species Zaire ebolavirus" -- the meaning of this phrase is not clear. Or not clear to the uninitiated. Surely all species are single members. And at the start of the article "Ebola virus" is stated to be the current name of "Zaire ebolavirus".Ankababel (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I commented earlier on this page, the nomenclature is a mess. A large part of the problem is that we are quote Kuhn et al. as gospel for the classifications, when in fact the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) rejected their classification proposal. The Kuhn et al. proposal called for the creation of a subspecies classification with the novel taxonomic rank "Virus" within species Zaire ebolavirus to be called simply "Ebola virus". Under that proposal, "Virus: Ebola Virus" would be the sole defined classification within Zaire ebolavirus; however, under the Kuhn et al. definitions they would not have been coextensive, so in principle one could define other subspecies names as well (provided any virii were discovered that fit within the definition of Zaire ebolavirus but not within "Virus: Ebola virus"). As I said ICTV rejected this proposal. As a result, "Ebola virus" actually has no official definition. Informally, it is frequently used as a common name synonym for Zaire ebolavirus, and less frequently as a synonym for all members of the the genus Ebolavirus more generally. Hence, yes, our current article is something of a taxonomic mess, and in large part relies on a taxonomic naming scheme put forward by several experienced researches but not necessarily adopted by the larger community. Dragons flight (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The lede currently says that the name was changed in 2010 "to avoid confusion." There's irony in that, because as the above explication shows, the proposed name apparently sows more confusion than it avoids. It seems that it's a good thing that the proposal was rejected, because it seems that it was poorly thought out. Maybe I'm missing something and the proposal was genius, but it sure doesn't seem so from what I can decipher. If one wanted to assign a new common name that was specific to the Zaire ebolavirus species—or to just one of its variants—one could coin one that doesn't naturally sound like the genus alone and that doesn't fail to distinguish among the 5 species via the lack of any explicit signifier. And if it takes paragraphs of explanation to make people understand, then maybe the nomenclature isn't well designed. All I know is, the very fact that, as of this writing, the Wikipedia pagenames Ebola virus and Ebolavirus don't merge to one article—regardless of whether the separate articles' ledes link to each other—is a big clue that someone's nomenclatural ideas need improving. I seriously suggest that Wikipedia not necessarily force its pagenaming to match any nomenclatural proposal that wasn't even adopted. We can give all props and respect to whoever proposed it without necessarily implementing it in our pagenaming. It would be perfectly OK—in fact, better—for Wikipedia to have one article, the ebolavirus genus article, that talked about all 5 (including any and all detail for Zaire ebolavirus, including any variants of it), and to simply say that "the common name 'Ebola virus', without further qualification, usually refers to Zaire ebolavirus or the such-and-such variant of it". Quercus solaris (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)