Talk:Virus/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Weapons

"But fears that it may be used as a weapon are not totally unfounded; the vaccine for smallpox has sometimes severe side-effects – during the last years before the eradication of smallpox disease more people became seriously ill as a result of vaccination than did people from smallpox." These statements are seemingly unrelated from what I can tell. "There are officially only two centers in the world that keep stocks of smallpox virus – the Russian Vector laboratory, and the United States Centers for Disease Control." It should be added that nations which did not take part in the World Health Organisation may also hold repositories of smallpox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossingStyx (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no proof of this, and we would need a reliable source. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Icosahedral [...] and are call hexons ("ed" missing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.22.34 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have corrected this. Graham Colm (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wil17071707, 21 April 2011

Please change this original description

Icosahedral
Most animal viruses are icosahedral or near-spherical with icosahedral symmetry. A regular icosahedron is the optimum way of forming a closed shell from identical sub-units.

to

Icosahedral
Most animal viruses are icosahedral or near-spherical with icosahedral symmetry, due to the fundamental constraints of elasticity [1] and electrostatics. [2]

Wil17071707 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear what is meant by, "due to the fundamental constraints of elasticity and electrostatics". This has to be clearly explained. The references alone are not sufficient. And, how will the addition of this information improve the article? Graham Colm (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from User: Mudpuddles1418, 27 May 2011

Edits to certain references are required. Here is the text of my comment on the "Talk" page which details the issue: "The reference cited (as of the moment I am writing this entry) for the contention that "Viruses are the most abundant biological entity in aquatic environments" is given as reference #1 (Koonin EV, Senkevich TG, Dolja VV. The ancient Virus World and evolution of cells. Biol. Direct. 2006;1:29.) This is a journal article which cites another author who determines that bacteriophages (specifically) are "the most abundant biological entities on the planet", but the article does not make any reference to any aquatic environment, or indeed any specific ecosystem - no mention of rivers, lakes, oceans, marine systems etc, so it is the incorrect reference here, i.e. it does not support the contention. However, higher up on the Wikipedia page is this sentence: "Bacteriophages are a common and diverse group of viruses and are the most abundant form of biological entity in aquatic environments..." which cites another article: Wommack KE, Colwell RR. Virioplankton: viruses in aquatic ecosystems. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.. 2000;64(1):69–114. This reference indirectly (through citation) supports the contention and may be the article which was originally meant. I am submitting an edit request to change this." Mudpuddles1418 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem, but I will check the consistency of the referencing on this. Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. I do see a major problem with false references, particularly in a science-related article. Hopefully someone will correct it. Mudpuddles1418 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Size" of viri; RHBridges (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the first section of this article, in the second paragraph, the last sentence reads "The average virus is about one one-hundredth the size of the average bacterium." Ambiguity: Does "size" here refer to length, surface area, volume or mass? Length and volume are most likely, and I'm guessing the author meant the former since my impression is that viri are considerably less than a hundredth the volume of bacteria. The comparison should be made less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHBridges (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not ambiguous. "Size" includes all these spacial dimensions. It's not ambiguous to say that the size of humans is smaller than that of elephants. The diameters and lengths of common viruses are given in the body of the article. It's reasonably accurate to say that a typical virus is 100 nanometres in diameter, whereas a typical coccus bacterium is around 1 micrometer in diameter and therefore "the average virus is about one one-hundredth the size of the average bacterium". It's not ambiguous, but it is a generalisation. Some viruses are as small as 15 nanometres, whereas others such as mimivirus are much, much larger. And, BTW, the plural of "virus" is "viruses" not "viri". Graham Colm (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mh40, 26 September 2011

please change in the first sentence the word small to microscopic as it is less relative and more professional "A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms" to A virus is a microscopic infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms" [3] Mh40 (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Most infectious agents are microscopic, but we would only call the smallest of them "small infectious agents". So the sentence as written, construed properly, conveys more information than the one you want it replaced by. I suppose the point is that viruses are smaller than most other infectious agents such as bacteria, or fungi. (Yet all of them are microscopic.) - Nunh-huh 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on number of viruses in seawater

So in the "Bacteria" section I read that "there are up to ten times more of these viruses in the oceans than there are bacteria,[201] reaching levels of 250,000,000 bacteriophages per millilitre of seawater." Subsequently in the "Role in aquatic ecosystems" section it says that "a teaspoon of seawater contains about one million [viruses]". So in 1mL of seawater there's a quarter of a billion bacteriophages, but in ~5mL there's one million total viruses? Something's not right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.11.161 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

These are averages that cannot be added. The important expressions are "reaching levels" and "about". It is impossible to be precise, we are discussing seawater after all. The point the article is making here is the abundance of viruses in the oceans. Graham Colm (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How many cells are killed by a virus?

I read the virus article and searched around and do not see any information on how many cells are normally killed by a typical virus during a normal infection (one, two, or more 10^x?). Now I expect there are going to be several dozen "it depends" tossed in the mix, but it would be of interest to the article to see just how many cells need to die before an immune response is initiated and the end number of cell deaths when the virus is "under control"(i.e. person not dead yet). Septagram (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question. Yes of course "it depends". Cell deaths range from none to millions, depending on the species of virus, the host and the type of cell infected. And it depends on what is meant by a normal infection – there's probably no such thing. In the lab, millions of bacteria can shown to be killed by a bacteriophage in a few minutes. In the cells of the salivary glands of many species of mosquito, viruses such as some species of flavivirus can reproduce without causing any cell damage. This is why these insects are efficient vectors. Some viruses actually cause and increase in the cell population - think about warts and cancer. Rotaviruses can destroy all the billions of enterocytes that line the duodenum. We also need to take into account the so-called lytic and and latent cycles of virus replication. Some viruses cause latent infections, some bacteriophages do not undergo a cycle of replication immediately after infecting a bacterium. They integrate their DNA with the host bacterium and this stage is called a prophage. Retroviruses, such as HIV, also do this and, despite being RNA viruses, they can hide their genes as DNA within the host cells. This is called pro-viral DNA. This is why, at the moment, HIV infections can be controlled but not cured. To complicate this attempt at an answer further, we have to remember that many cell deaths that follow a virus infection are not caused by the viruses directly – the cells often kill themselves (see apoptosis) or are destroyed by cells of the immune system as a result of antigen presentation. In fact, in mammals and other animals, thanks to the phenomenon of antigen presentation, no cells need to die before the immune response is invoked. Lastly some virus infections (probably many more than we currently know about) are called "silent" in that there is no apparent immune response, no cell damage or death. Many humans, perhaps most, are infected with two species of papovavirus called JC and BK, and there are no overt signs of infection or an immune response. But there must be one because these otherwise harmless viruses cause problems in the immuno-compromised such as transplant recipients. Virus-host interactions are complex and there is no simple answer to your question. I have tried to explain why using only one "it depends". Graham Colm (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Still I would like to see some numbers on the common flu and the difference flu shots make in reducing any cell deaths. Septagram (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Definition

(pasted from my Talk Page Graham Colm (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

As you have suggested I am raising here the question of why you consider a definition of a virus at the start of an article discussing viruses to be a problem. It seems a logical place to place it. The definition is taken from a textbook of virology and seems to cover most of the known cases up to its date of publication. The virophages might create a problem for this definition as do the viroids if we include Hepatitis D as a viroid. Since you seem to have a problem with this I would be grateful if you could explain your position. DrMicro (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean here, I meant the Virus Discussion Page, but never mind. The problem I see with this sentence in the Lead is that it is too technical for many readers. This FA has been carefully crafted, with input from non-scientists, to introduce the readers gently into a subject that many find baffling. Having expressions such as "acellular", "nucleotide genomes", "encode at least one protein" and " transmitted horizontally" in the second sentence, will put many readers off straight away. We haven't told them yet about viral reproduction, but they need to know this to understand this definition. And, its inclusion mentioned something in the Lead that is not in the Main Article, which we do not do in FAs. You noticed that I simply moved the sentence down, rather than delete it. We must, especially in the Lead, write in the most accessible English we can on this highly technical subject. There is a similar problem with the recently added section on triangulation numbers—this is probably gobbledygook to the average reader. It's something I have been meaning to tackle but have not gotten around to yet. You say that the definition is taken from the source. How close is the wording? If it is too close this could be another issue. I do not disagree with the definition and I don't think the satellite viruses go against it, and viroids aren't viruses–that's why we call them viroids. It's it's placement at the top of the article, which is the main problem. Graham Colm (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion re Talk page. I knew you would see it here and I wasn't sure which page you meant. An apology seems in order: I didn't see that you had moved it which is why I replaced it.
Concerning the definition: the version here is very close to the original. This is permitted under copyright: it is two sentences from an entire textbook (hence quantitatively a trivial quantity) and has been properly cited. Secondly this is as you correctly have noted a technical subject. For that reason precise definitions are important to ensure clear communication. Technical definitions resemble each other very closely for this reason.
The satellite viruses might qualify under this definition but I'm not at all sure about the virophages. They had not been described at the time this text book was published (1995)
The triangulation number probably deserves a page on its own as it it repeatedly referred to on the pages dealing with the various viruses.DrMicro (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It is "clear communication" that is the issue. That's why I don't think it is helpful in the Lead. It is a definition aimed at virologists. I think the section on triangulation numbers would be better placed in Capsid. Graham Colm (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
PS. No apology needed :-) I think the so-called virophages are just satellites – but this is a discussion for another day. I am happy with the current placement of the definition, but still a little concerned over the similarity to the source. But no big deal. Graham Colm (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:PLAGIARISM. We often only use a few sentences from any one source in any one article. That doesn't mean we are allowed to take them verbatim. Copyright and plagiarism are two separate things. In addition, multiple articles may take from one source, breaching the acceptable limit wrt copyright (for example, this is why we can't verbatim reproduce the DSM in every relevant disease article). --Colin°Talk 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright law permits and has permitted since its creation the use of small amounts of material from a published work. These materials may be used verbatim for defined purposes including reviews and criticism. The US ruling on a publication an encyclopedia of characters and places in the Harry Potter novel hinged on the amount of material cited in the book that was taken verbatim from the Harry Potter novels. Two sentences taken from a text book and subsequently modified would pass any reasonable test of copyright.DrMicro (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright law is not the issue here. We don't write this encyclopaedia by assembling sentences taken from our sources and then passing it off as our original work. Have a read of the guideline. If the definition used by an authoratative source is brilliant and we don't want to weaken it by rephrasing, then we can attribute it, put it in quotes, etc. --Colin°Talk 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the troublesome edit. It is not a universally accepted definition in any case and it is not supported by the reference given despite the confession that "the version here is very close to the original". Viruses are difficult to define fully in a couple of sentences and most virologists do not attempt to do this. The satellite viruses for example are not covered by this definition. Prof Nigel Dimmock (an internationally acclaimed virologist) in Introduction to Modern Virology ISBN 9781405136457 (2007) calls Chapter 1 of his book "Towards a definition of a virus", but makes no attempt at one. This book was published over ten years after the one cited. Graham Colm (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2011

Please replace (A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.) with (A virus is a small infectious agent. Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites, meaning that they must remain inside a cell in order to survive and replicate.) because I feel that it needs to be added that they are obligate intracellular parasites. This would mean a lot more to a biologist than 'they can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms'. F6ZHOST (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • - On hold - additions require WP:RS reliable sources so that users can assess and add them - Please present one for discussion or feel free to open a new edit request that includes a reliable source that supports the desired edit. - Thanks Youreallycan (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
"obligate intracellular parasite" means "can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms". There is no need to add another term and then define it. Also "in order to" is redundant, and viruses can survive outside cells – that's how we catch colds and other viral infections. Graham Colm (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Small request: Single virus particle - 12/30/11

As great as the article is, it was missing one small thing. This:

Viron or Virion (pronounced /ˈvaɪrɒn, ˈvɪri.ɒn/) refers to a single virus particle. "Virion" is included in there, but not "Viron".

While this information is available on Wikipedia, it really ought to be available in the actual virus article. While perhaps a trifling detail, I found myself needing to know it, and imagine there must be others who have as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramivacation (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, where is this definition from other than WP? I have never heard the word "viron" used in this context. A Google search for "viron" returns nothing about viruses, apart from our Wikipedia entry, which I have just corrected. Graham Colm (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Too long lead

Hi,

I think the lead is much too long. Due to the lead guidelines it should have at most 4 paragraphs, but now there are 6.

At least the paragraphs are properly constructed, i.e. they consist of one thought at the time, while there are numerous examples, where simply glueing them together makes them (artificially) less.

I know the article is important, long and complicated, but look at the comparable example of how to make lead readable by strong trimming in the RNA article. I'd love to see something like that here. kocio (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the article has undergone a rigorous review at FAC, and although some changes have taken place since its promotion, I think the Lead is of adequate length for a vital article that receives an average of 5,000 hits a day. As you know, I trimmed RNA, but I don't think similar surgery is needed here. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

virus' which become actively beneficial symbionts?

Are there any known viral contagions which enhance or augment a survival trait of its host without otherwise negative effect? Would this be related to Kappa organisms or is this a separate possibility/conception? 71.32.255.81 (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Some endogenous retroviruses have a positive role in human development see Kämmerer U, Germeyer A, Stengel S, Kapp M, Denner J (2011). "Human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) is expressed in villous and extravillous cytotrophoblast cells of the human placenta". Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 91 (1–2): 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jri.2011.06.102. PMID 21840605. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Graham Colm (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Hepatitis C can not be transmitted by any means other than blood. In the case of Saliva hypotheticaly I guess there may be blood present in saliva which may infect another if they have a wound etc in thier mouth or digestive track.

Horizontal transmission is the most common mechanism of spread of viruses in populations. Transmission can occur when: body fluids are exchanged during sexual activity, e.g., HIV; blood is exchanged by contaminated transfusion or needle sharing, e.g., hepatitis C; exchange of saliva by mouth, e.g., Epstein-Barr virus; contaminated food or water is ingested, e.g., norovirus; aerosols containing virions are inhaled, e.g., influenza virus; and insect vectors such as mosquitoes penetrate the skin of a host, e.g., dengue. The rate or speed of transmission of viral infections depends on factors that include population density, the number of susceptible individuals, (i.e., those not immune),[139] the quality of healthcare and the weather.[140]

203.58.6.246 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say hepatitis C virus can be transmitted by saliva. Graham Colm (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Viruses which infect plants?

It says in the article that, "The viruses that infect plants are harmless to animals..." I would suggest that the sentence be changed to, "The viruses that infect plants are not directly harmful to animals..." or something similar. I don't mean to be picky but if a virus wiped out the main food crop it would severely affect animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence further down, (under "Plant viruses") to "Plant viruses cannot infect humans and other animals because they can reproduce only in living plant cells." I have left the sentence under the heading "Host range" unchanged because it is clear from the heading that infection is being discussed. Plant viruses do not wipe out agricultural or natural food crops, (unlike fungi), so your hypothetical scenario is most unlikely to happen. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes The EM Data Bank (EMDB) has a number of 3D reconstructions of viruses. The following link yields search results from EMDB: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/emdb/EMSearch/searchResults.html?q=virus

This link is dynamic in that it will return the current virus holdings of the EMDB and is therefore always up-to-date. I was wondering if it was useful to have this link referenced in the text? Electronsaregreen (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the link at the bottom of the page is sufficient. Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The first sentence of this entry is almost an exact match with the description of a virus athttp://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-a-Virus.aspx. I understand that describing a virus in a straightforward way is bound to lead to similarities, but this looks more like merely shuffling a couple words around and adding "living" before cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by72.253.234.139 (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right about how the first sentences match; however, it's not immediately obvious which came first. The WayBackMachine shows that the first snapshot of that external site's page was taken 13 Jan 2010. Using the revision history of the WP Virus page, you can watch the current wording of our first sentence develop in fall of 2009 (the developing language is perhaps the most convincing evidence that our WP page is where the current wording originated). It seems likely, given these facts, that the external site probably copied the content from this Wikipedia page. BTW, see WP:Talk - new sections go at the bottom of the page, so I've moved this one. -- Scray (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It says at the bottom of the news-medical article: "This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Virus" All material adapted used from Wikipedia is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Wikipedia® itself is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." Graham Colm (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, next time I'll investigate more thoroughly before raising a flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.175.167 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

virus infected

Please mention that viruses can be infected by other viruses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastronomer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is too controversial. Some viruses are dependent on other viruses for their replication. This is called "satellitism". Example are adeno-associated viruses and hepatitis D virus. Our article on the sputnik virophage is useful. These virophages inhibit the replication of other viruses, but they don't infect them. See this paper:
Graham Colm (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

'Role in human disease'

"cold sores" are HERPES. no need to use the socially polite phrase in this article, and it is misleading to people who don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Largest known virus

The information given for mimivirus being the largest known virus is out of date. The largest known virus im terms of both size and genome length is now Megavirus chilensis, discovered in 2011. 138.38.10.150 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagged it until I or someone else tracks down a source. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Spell 'icosahedron' correctly

Do a search for 'isosahedron' and change it to 'icosahedron'. It's next to the word 'Prolate'.

Thanks! Done. Biosthmors (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2013

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

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

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

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)

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

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/[4]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.htm[5]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 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That source only mentions mercury. This source is about viruses and there is a good summary of the source here . 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/[6]talk70.117.15.112 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

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}} (t • e • c) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Marburg Virus Outbreak information outdated

This article states that the Marburg Virus outbreak of mid 2000's was the worst hemmoragic fever outbreaks on record. This has now long been eclipsed by the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa and should be updated.

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134771/1/roadmapsitrep_24Sept2014_eng.pdf?ua=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penetronn (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article as you have suggested, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

fix sentence

Article states: In 2011, researchers discovered the then-largest known virus on the ocean floor off the coast of Las Cruces, Chile. Provisionally named Megavirus chilensis, it can be seen with a basic optical microscope...

Assuming the report was not just the "largest on the ocean floor", suggest new sentence:

In 2011, researchers discovered the largest virus then known in samples taken from the ocean floor off the coast of Las Cruces, Chile. Provisionally named Megavirus chilensis, it can be seen with a basic optical microscope...64.26.99.248 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I have changed it to: "In 2011, researchers discovered the largest then known virus in samples of water collected from the ocean floor off the coast of Las Cruces, Chile." Graham Beards (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Earliest use of "viral"

The article says "The adjective viral dates to 1948", yet GBS throws up several mentions from earlier in the 1940s:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22viral%22&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1940,cd_max:1945&tbm=bks

Perhaps "dates to the 1940s" would be better, on available evidence?

109.153.227.136 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Googlen-gram viewer yielded this, fellas: The Young men's magazine [afterw.] The Association, or ... - 155페이지




https://books.google.co.kr/books?id... - 이 페이지 번역하기

1854 - ‎읽기 The first chapter is devoted to the realms of nature. These are said to be the basal, chemie, floral, faunal, and viral. Bodies at "the bottom foundation of things are called basal. Those combined with caloric, or electricity, or chemie materials, are ... 11:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Replication breakthrough?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/05/scientists-just-cracked-the-viral-equivalent-of-the-enigma-code/?wpisrc=nl_mix&wpmm=1 211.225.34.159 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We need to be patient see WP:recent. Graham Beards (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How many is much? Tons or bunches?

"reaching levels of 250,000,000 bacteriophages per millilitre of seawater."
"A teaspoon of seawater contains about one million viruses."
"There are approximately 4x10**30 phage in oceans or 5x10**7 per millilitre."

As inconsistent as these numbers are, they become unbelievable, yes? Shenme (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The third isn't in the article any more, and the first differs from the second by indicating a maximum value rather than average. ⁓ Hello71 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Harmless pathogens?

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

What is the Classification of antiviral drug

Size clarification in intro

Tag

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2016

Removing not necessary image

Antiviral drugs - non scientific

External links modified

External links modified

Replication, constitution and nature.

Proposed correction

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

Please correct ambiguous sentence in "Classification" section

edit protected req

Introduction to virus

Virusbox upgrade

Reason for not-life

In 1989 Michael Houghton's team at Chiron Corporation discovered Hepatitis C

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Alcohol

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2020

Slightly disconnected paragraph

This claim is not supported so it should be removed

Sigh ... 2000 species in one place, 5500+ in another

Video review request

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

Question Not Addressed: 2

"When infected, a host cell is forced to rapidly produce thousands of identical copies of the original virus."

Question not addressed: 1

Structure of SARS-COV-2, suggestion/request

Misformatted Sars-CoV-2 virion

Number of viral genome sequences

Edit request

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Corrections

Virus: living or not

Ethimology

revision

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI