Talk:Virus/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Virus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

(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 [1] 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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 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)

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)

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:

• Krupovic M, Cvirkaite-Krupovic V (2011). "Virophages or satellite viruses?". Nat Rev Microbiol. 9 (11): 762–763. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2676. PMID 22016897.

Graham Colm (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).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.htmCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).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 [2] and there is a good summary of the source here [3]. 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/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).talk70.117.15.112 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"However, most viruses co-exist harmlessly in their host and cause no signs or symptoms of disease." If this is true, then how can viruses be defined in general as "pathogens"? If you google search "nonpathogenic viruses," you'll find several examples of viruses described in scientific sources as non-pathogenic. So they are non-pathogenic pathogens? I think the current definition we give for viruses as "pathogens" is unsatisfactory. Urszag (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although the scope for improving it is bounded by the limits of natural language. The root of the problem is an ontologic weakness of natural language, whereby humans have a tendency to continue to name a superset according to the traits of the principal subset even after it becomes apparent that there's a conflation. The cognates of "infection" have been referring to pathogenic presence/introduction of an agent, not just presence/introduction of an agent per se, all the way through Old and Middle French infection since Latin infectus.^[4] However, in the past century or so, we have not revised the way we use the word to reflect the newer understanding that so many examples of presence/introduction are benign, commensal, symbiotic, and otherwise. We have the word inoculation, but that so often connotes human intentional agency (reflecting its original senses) that it often doesn't substitute well. This example is a wrinkle that will not be trivial to iron out. There has long been a natural effort to try to use the word "infection" in a sense stripped of pathogenic meaning, which allows one to talk about "asymptomatic infection", "silent carriers of infection", "latent infection", "undetected infection", "harmless infection", and so on. But collectively we haven't yet convened on using the word consistently. It still often carries its original sense binding pathology along with it. Thus, as of this writing, the infectious agent page redirects to pathogen; the infection page's lede is all about presence of an agent coupled with pathosis, not just presence per se; which reflects the fact that (1) humans perennially conflate asymptomatic infection with "not infection" and, on the complementary side of the same coin, the fact that (2) the principal sense of the word "infection" is, implicitly, "symptomatic infection". Straightening out this annoyance completely, that is, at its roots, would require controlled natural language, which is beyond Wikipedia's scope. That said, doing a better job of handling it—acknowledging the conflation and pointing readers in correct directions at each mention—is possible to do if people will allow it to be done. One would not be finished doing it until one came to grips with, and stated in a Wikipedia lede, the notion that the essential thing being talked about is simply presence of an agent, and that pathogenic instances are the ones that people usually care about, and that therefore the word "infection" usually refers to them. One last set of thoughts. It's my understanding that the human genome itself, as we currently understand it, is a rambling record of bacteria and viruses that became part of us. And the mitochondria of our cells are some of the descendants of those bacteria. And without our gut flora and skin flora we'd be dead. Those facts alone are testament to the fact that we need to agree on better revised vocabulary to talk about the presence or introduction of one organism within another. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can you add how someone can remove a virus from a computer 65.175.134.44 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for computer help. -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Besides which, this article is about the wrong type of virus. Take a look at Computer virus#Countermeasures. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A virus is not a microorganism, therefore it cannot infect OTHER microorganisms. Request to have other removed Lochnessdonuts (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Since microbiologists themselves cannot agree on whether viruses should be classified as microorganisms or not. General Ization ^Talk 23:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also because I can find no occurrence of the text "other microorganisms" in the article. General Ization ^Talk 23:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this discrepancy about whether or not a virus is considered a microorganism should be addressed somewhere in the article? (I don't have the ability to edit this, so someone else will have to if it is done at all.)108.85.152.134 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a discrepancy. There is no agreement as to whether they should be classified as microorganisms or not. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to decide; we just report current knowledge and thinking, which we base on reliable sources. Besides, what difference does it make? Does coming to an established conclusion that viruses are microbes change anything? It will not help us to control them, eradicate them, or exploit them. Categorisation is helpful to human comprehension but some aspects of classification in biology are pure human inventions that have no correlation to evolutionary relationships. Viruses are a excellent example of this. I don't think any clarification or further discourse is needed in the article. And, please do not consider this "dodging the question" as a previous commentator on this page did (see the archives) with regard to viruses being alive. Best wishes Graham Beards (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the classification of antiviral drug? Dinesh1978 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking, but I'll venture an answer anyway. Antiviral drugs, like most other medications, can be usefully classified by which metabolic process they interfere with. For example, in drugs used to treat HIV, there are reverse transcriptase inhibitors (which interfere with the viral enzyme reverse transcriptase, needed to convert viral RNA to DNA), protease inhibitors (which interfere with the viral enzyme protease, needed to process viral polypeptides into functional enzymes), and integrase inhibitors (interfere with the viral enzyme integrase, which speed incorporation of viral DNA into the host cell). Drugs used agains other virsus include nucleoside analogs that interfere wifh viral RNA synthesis (e.g. Ribavirin). But there are all kinds of ways to classify medications. - Nunh-huh 12:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Interesting question. For most viruses they are classified by how they target the virus's replication cycle. For example, HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors, which are further sub-classified as nucleoside analogues and non-nucleoside analogues. Then there are the HIV protease inhibitors and integrase inhibitors. Some HIV drugs are also effective against hepatitis B virus; these are the reverse transcriptase inhibitors. For influenza virus, there are neuraminidase inhibitors. Drugs that are used for herpes viruses target the virus's DNA polymerase, so they are classified as DNA polymerase inhibitors. Ribavirin is an RNA polymerase inhibitor and it also prevents the capping of messenger RNA. Interferon, which is used in combination with other antiviral drugs, is a cytokine. When naming antiviral drugs there is a trend towards using the suffix -(a)vir, (which is short for antiviral), as in aciclovir (used for herpesviruses) and abacavir, tenofovir and so forth, which are used to treat HIV infections. Hope this helps. Graham Beards (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The current version of intro says :The average virion is about one one-hundredth the size of the average bacterium". Could someone please clarify what size means here, length or volume? 137.141.221.78 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with a lead too long tag. My edit conforms to WP:LEADLENGTH and should not be reverted without providing a good reason. Also, at the time the article got promoted to FA‐status, the lead was shorter then it is now. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The Lead was not that much shorter. What do you think should be removed? Graham Beards (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please let me maka some good changes

Krishnakolarya (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Life timeline
This box: view talk edit
−4500 — – — – −4000 — – — – −3500 — – — – −3000 — – — – −2500 — – — – −2000 — – — – −1500 — – — – −1000 — – — – −500 — – — – 0 —	Water   Single-celled life   Photosynthesis   Eukaryotes   Multicellular life   P l a n t s   Arthropods Molluscs Flowers Dinosaurs   Mammals Birds Primates H a d e a n A r c h e a n P r o t e r o z o i c P h a n e r o z o i c	← Earth formed ← Earliest water ← LUCA ← Earliest fossils ← LHB meteorites ← Earliest oxygen ← Pongola glaciation* ← Atmospheric oxygen ← Huronian glaciation* ← Sexual reproduction ← Earliest multicellular life ← Earliest fungi ← Earliest plants ← Earliest animals ← Cryogenian ice age* ← Ediacaran biota ← Cambrian explosion ← Hirnantian glaciation* ← Earliest tetrapods ← Karoo ice age* ← Earliest apes / humans ← Quaternary ice age*
(million years ago) *Ice Ages

In the "Origins" somebody put life timeline picture (on the right). Apart from being nice picture, I think its content has very little to do with the viruses by itself and is only very remotely related to the section, thus I think the picture could be deleted without any damage.

Peter Ivory (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Graham Beards (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Antiviral drugs section: Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues (fake DNA building-blocks), which viruses mistakenly incorporate into their genomes during replication. It's not correct to call nucleoside analogues, "fake DNA building-blocks". I would rather change it to nucleoside analogues (DNA-like building-blocks)" or just remove the "fake DNA building-blocks".

The second incorrect analogy is "which viruses mistakenly incorporate into their genomes during replication". The virus doesn't make a mistake when incorporating the nucleoside analogues, it just incorporates the nucleotide analogues into its genome. I would remove "mistakenly" altogether.

But if someone has a better suggestions for changing the first sentence please write it down below! Bonnom (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The metaphor is an acceptable way of explaining the mode of action of these drugs to the lay reader. Graham Beards (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Some antiviral drugs are nucleoside analogues. They are similar enough in shape to actual nucleosides that they will be incorporated as “DNA building blocks” into the virus’s genome during replication, but will, unlike actual nucleosides, interfere with the normal functioning or transcription of that DNA." - Nunh-huh 07:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But they do not interfere with normal functioning of the DNA; they prevent the DNA molecule from being completed by the polymerase. Graham Beards (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You could rephrase if you like; one normal function of DNA is, I think, to be reproduced. - Nunh-huh 08:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026192526/http://ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp?msl_id=28 to http://ictvonline.org/virusTaxonomy.asp?msl_id=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002045032/http://talk.ictvonline.org/files/ictv_documents/m/msl/4911.aspx to http://talk.ictvonline.org/files/ictv_documents/m/msl/4911.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://openurl.ingenta.com/content/nlm?genre=article&issn=1088-5412&volume=13&issue=5&spage=225&aulast=Bianchine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023223/http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2005/december/1201.pdf to http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2005/december/1201.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122231422/http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2008/jc1510_2008_global_report_pp29_62_en.pdf to http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2008/jc1510_2008_global_report_pp29_62_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013220414/http://www.ibioseminars.org/lectures/global-health-a-energy/david-baltimore.html to http://www.ibioseminars.org/lectures/global-health-a-energy/david-baltimore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014045104/http://www.ibioseminars.org/lectures/bio-mechanisms/ari-helenius-part-1.html to http://www.ibioseminars.org/lectures/bio-mechanisms/ari-helenius-part-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed a simple instance of repetition in the third para of the lede which deals with viroids and noticed some apparent anomalies. The article defines a virus as "a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms". However it has been shown that RNA is capable of self-replication in vitro (Lincoln, T. A., and Joyce, G. F. (2009) Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme. Science 323, 1229–1232. doi: 10.1126/science.1167) and the article on viroids here states they are "solely composed of a short strand of circular, single-stranded RNA without protein coat" and quotes from Flores et al that: "Viruses (and viroids) .. are able to generate copies of themselves" and, for instance, the statement at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3879688/ that: "Unlike most RNA viruses, HDV does not encode its own replicase or RNA-dependant RNA polymerase to replicate its genome" infers that most RNA viruses do encode their own replicase or polymerase to replicate their genome. Could someone please clarifyin the two articles descriptions of replication capabilities/limitations and composition of viruses, virions, and viroids? LookingGlass (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, unless I am mistaken, you seem to be thinking that viruses, viroids and RNA are the same biological entities but they are not. HDV - a virusoid - is most unusual, it cannot replicate without the presence of hepatitis B virus, and in many ways resembles a viroid. A virion is the term used for individual virus particles. There are no errors in this article or the viroid article in this regard.Graham Beards (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Graham Beards:, thanks and I think you're right! I quoted re HDV only because of its (obverse) inference that: "most RNA viruses do encode their own replicase or polymerase". This seems to relate to the opening statement that viruses (all) "replicate(s) only inside the living cells of other organisms". A statement that seems to have been shown not to be the case (in vitro). The article imo doesn't clearly differentiate betwen viruses viroids and virions. Regarding e.g virus/virion, it states: "Most viruses cannot be seen with an optical microscope so scanning and transmission electron microscopes are used to visualise virions". Obvious questions pop-up, such as, at what point/how do the "particles" (virions) become the real deal? Viroids seem to be vurses sans protein coat. Size here is also confusing re the viroid article. A prion is apparently ~5nm https://www.quora.com/How-large-is-a-prion, the smallest virus ~17nm and a viroid ~50nm https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/viroid - making a prion the smallest infectious agent. My questions are vague, and I work to clarify them, but if I manage that I'll also then have their answers. LookingGlass (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have any clear suggestions on how to improve this (featured) article, I cannot see any reason to continue this discussion. Graham Beards (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: My apologies. I do not have sufficient expertise in the field. Whatever I do find rest assured I will not edit your article. All the best with it. LookingGlass (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Section ICTV classification needs to be corrected: 9 orders have been established in the 2017 release (ratified March 2018), Ortervirales not mentioned. Refer to [4].

I am not allowed to correct it myself, sorry. Petr Karel (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Petr, I have updated the section. Graham Beards (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the virus value from biology online, it is important reliable information https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Virus 62.219.74.18 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "=="-level section titled "Classification", the introductory paragraph is self-contradictory: After describing a 1962 system by Lwoff, Horne, and Tournier that does include phyla and classes, this contrary sentence appears:

Viruses are not classified on the basis of phylum or class, as their small genome size and high rate of mutation makes it difficult to determine their ancestry beyond order.

The contrary sentence is sandwiched inbetween two sentences describing two further systems, the second presumably created by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, and the third Baltimore classification. Please redact the contrary sentence to include the name of the system it pertains to (apparently both, based on the following subsections, but certainly not Lwoff, Horne, and Tournier, 1962).

Links to the terms phyla, classes etc. where they first appear might be good too, in addition to the links for order–species in the following subsection. 208.54.5.213 (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have edited the section in question. There was no contradiction because the 1962 system was never fully accepted or used. Graham Beards (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please under Virus#Weapons, do link "1918 influenza" to Spanish flu and make the rest of the paragraph about smallpox its own paragraph by adding a CR/LF. Thank you. 2001:14BA:80D2:6F00:21A:73FF:FED7:2B4B (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: To avoid Overlinking as per WP:MOS, I didnot link 1918 influenza. It was mentioned as a main article and linked under the section Epidemics and pandemics. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence in this article reads "A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms" . I wonder about the use of the word small. How small? Smaller than what? Is there a large infectious agent to contrast it against? I would suggest the word "microscopic" instead. Also I wonder about the use of the word "other organisms". Seems to say that the reader is immune to the virus, only "other" organisms are susceptible. What other organism do you mean? I would delete the word "other" but I'll leave that to more advanced editors. Regards. Waterproof-breathable (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Graham Beards:: This article should have an automated taxobox, as per consensuses at Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. Also, the consensus is that ICTV taxonomy is used now, and as of October 2018, ICTV does not use the Baltimore system due to paraphyly. It does not benefit the casual reader to highlight deprecated taxonomy. If the updated taxobox is not friendly enough, the solution is further improvement and not reversion. --Nessie (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is ridiculously long and it is not at all helpful to the lay reader (many of whom will not understand "incertae sedis"). The box should just list the Orders. Because the ICTV does not use the Baltimore Classification does not invalidate it as an alternative, it is still taught and described in core texts. The ICTV has never used the Baltimore Classification, so you cannot say it is "deprecated". I would happy if we achieve a consensus on this, but that huge box is a waste of space. Graham Beards (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Incertae sedis was wikilinked. Readers can easily click for a full explanation. Also, the taxobox is supposed to organize the facts, and not explore them in detail, that is what the text of the body is for. The Baltimore classification is not used for taxonomy on Enwiki, as per previous consensus. Again, that is something for the body of the article, and not the taxobox. You say you want consensus, but you are trying to go against it. Consensus is for automated taxoboxes and ICTV taxonomy. Baltimore should not be included in taxoboxes. If you think the taxobox is large, that is not a reason for removal. You could easily move the subtaxa to a section and add a link. Also, the orders, outside of those in Negarnaviricota, are all incertae sedis, so I'm not sure why those are okay and the other ranks are not. --Nessie (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I never said keep the Baltimore Classification in the box. I explained why it is not deprecated. I said the box should just list the Orders. Graham Beards (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: you put the Baltimore classification in the box after it was removed. I don't think I was far off in assuming you wanted it there. Plus you did not explain why you want only the incertae sedis orders, and not the phylum, nor the incertae sedis families and genera. --Nessie (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted to the version that included the Baltimore Classification. I did put it in the box after it had been removed. My objection is that the list in the box is way too long. Take a look at the sister articles Fungi and Bacteria. We need something of a similar length here. Not a list that scrolls down four screens. Graham Beards (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article repeatedly — in the introduction as well as later in the text — uses the criterion of "no cellular structure" to rule viruses as not living. Wouldn't "no metabolism" be a more convincing argument? (At least, I recall it as the one presented as the primary reason when I took Biology.) One catch is that it's not obvious to a layman why a capsule does not count as a cell; effectively the real criterion is swept under the rug that is the definition of "cellular structure". Another catch is that it is not particularly clear why a cellular structure should be an absolute requirement for life. Applying this criterion against known biology (and taking it as given that viruses don't have a cellular structure), it is pretty much only ruling out viruses, so imposing it could be taken as an underhanded way of saying "I don't want viruses to be living, so I define them to not be." Applying this criterion to fictional life (say, "robot civilisations") would also rule as non-living things which could intuitively be perceived as living, so again it seems a bit dubious as absolute requirement, even if it does yield the correct answer for all known biology. 130.243.68.218 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please read WP:NOTFORUM and note that Wikipedia reflects the current consensus as published in reliable sources. Graham Beards (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This should be 'discovered the hepatitis (lowercase) C virus'.

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This statement should be changed from:

nd the French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d'Herelle described viruses

to: the Canadian microbiologist Felix d'Herelle

French Canadians do not hold any special distiction anymore tham Polish Canadians, Irish Canadians, or any other ethnic group within Canada. I find this reference offensive. There would never be a reference to an English Canadian. 68.149.128.197 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not describing his ethnic group, he is a literal Frenchman who only lived in Canada between the ages of 24 to 38. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I searched for "alcohol" in this article and made no hit. I searched this talk page as well as the archives and found nothing. Is this normal, or an oversight ? I also searched for "anol" in the article (for "(iso)propanol", "ethanol") but no luck. —Jerome Potts (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, presumably because you are interested in its use as a protection against infection? If this is the case, you are in the wrong place and need to read the individual articles. Viruses differ greatly with regard to their inactivation by alcohol. Most viruses are completely resistant to it and examples of these included rotavirus and norovirus and all known plant viruses and bacteriophages. The viruses that are susceptible to alcohol are generally enveloped and these include herpesviruses, influenza viruses and (the current) coronaviruses. Having said that, these viruses are just as susceptible to warm soapy water, and there is nothing special about alcohol in this regard, which is why you could not find it mentioned. Graham Beards (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"The whole virion is slightly pleiomorphic, ranging from ovoid to brick-shaped.[85]

In the above text everything is correct but please change the word in the last line - "pleiomorphic to pleomorphic" as pleiomorphic spelling is wrong 117.205.162.163 (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is written in British English please see WP:ENGVAR.Graham Beards (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the section History: 5th paragraph, 4th line please add "X-ray crystallographic" before picture as Rosalind Franklin developed the technique and used it for determining biological structures. <https://naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com/users/17778-ben-johnson/posts/18900-rosalind-franklin-s-contributions-to-virology> SomaMukho (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added "X-ray crystallographic" as suggested. Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Prions are infectious protein molecules that do not contain DNA or RNA.[64] They can cause infections such as scrapie in sheep, bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow" disease) in cattle, and chronic wasting disease in deer; in humans, prionic diseases include Kuru, Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, and Gerstmann–Sträussler–Scheinker syndrome."

This paragraph is included in the "Origins" section, but no actual connection with the topic of the section, i.e. the origins of viruses, is actually made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:4B91:AB00:35B5:14F4:9C9:BE8A (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing this out. The paragraph was carried over from an earlier version. I have deleted it. Graham Beards (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The statement "Measures to curtail the impact of the pandemic have been hampered by fear and prejudice and the stigmatisation of infected people.[187]" should be removed because it links to a paper that doesn't even make that claim. Plus the "scientific" paper cites as evidence numerous articles from China Daily which is just a propaganda machine of the totalitarian Chinese Communist Party. And, really, in the brief paragraph devoted to this disease, is this truly the most important information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.88.97 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence has been removed from the article. I agree, it is not the most important information.Graham Beards (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

'Encyclopaedia' ... Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.123.11 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, your minimalist comment was rather vague but I think your point has been addressed. If not, please explain.Graham Beards (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have produced a short video (≈ 5´) on the basics of viral development. It is planned to publish the video in one of the articles associated with the topic, provided it is reviewed positively by qualified WP peers. The file format is .ogg, the file size may be 50MB.
• As I am not a virologist / biologist I want to ask wikipedians of relevant biomedical knowledge for a review. Please point out any errors and suggest improvements where suitable.
• Thank you to anybody who finds time to evaluate the movie. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the time taken to produce this video. Unfortunately it is poor quality and has many inaccuracies. For example, what are PV enzymes? And what about DNA viruses? The greater problem is that the video cannot be edited, which would be a prime requirement for inclusion in an article. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube. Graham Beards (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wikipedia - Virus -> 2nd sentence in entire article which states "Viruses can infect all types of life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea.[1]" NEEDS MODIFICATION to "Various viruses can infect all types of life forms, from animals and plants to microorganisms, including bacteria and archaea.[1]" because not every virus can infect all types of life forms, but some variations might, others might only infect one species or genus, etc. etc. simply stating 'viruses can infect all types of life forms' is extremely misleading! 168.103.219.190 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. In any case, it seems clear that this is referring to viruses as a whole, not that all viruses can infect everything. If you want to propose alternate wording that you think is clearer, go right ahead, but until then, there's not a request specific enough to act on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think OP meant: All types of life forms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms such bacteria and archaea, can be infected by viruses. Left unsaid in that sentence is whether viruses can be infected by viruses. Virophage suggests that the answer is sort of yes. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In this article, the last step in the "Replication Cycle" is "Release" -- new virions come out of the cell that created them. But what happens then? Suppose I inhale a droplet carrying a virus, and it infects a small number of cells in the top corner of my left lung. Now I believe that for Corona, the generation time is something like 6 hours. So the day after I inhaled the droplet, I have up to four generations worth of viral particles -- "millions". Where are they? Has my bloodstream distributed them evenly throughout my body so my big toe is (roughly) as infected my left lung? Or is there still a major focus at the top of my left lung? In other words, is my immune system fighting the virus throughout my body, or is the fight significantly concentrated at the top of my left lung, in an area surrounding the initial point of infection? If the latter, then I could easily imagine how 100 initial points of infection would be much worse than a single infection (see question 1!), even if the number of virus particles were the same. This seems to be a really fundamental fact about being infected by a virus, but "nobody" says anything about it... RobertII (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The viruses spread to all cells that express the viral receptor (ACE 2 in the case of coronaviruses). Big toe cells are different to lung cells. Wart viruses replicate in skin, respiratory viruses replicate in the respiratory tract, enteric viruses replicate in the gut, hepatitis viruses replicate in the liver, HIV replicates primarily in lymphocytes and so on. This is all already in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Exactly what changes or additions to the article are you offering? Graham Beards (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Graham: I'm not offering any changes or additions -- I don't know the area well enough. I'm trying to contribute to the article by suggesting an addition that I believe would greatly improve it, and I'm hoping to prompt someone knowledgeable to augment it. RobertII (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. There are viruses - eg influenza - for which the mutation rate is so high that there is enormous variation in the "daughter" copies. Should that be mentioned at this point of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:961:EF2:88EF:BC97 (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It says in the article "RNA viruses often exist as quasispecies or swarms of viruses of the same species but with slightly different genome nucleoside sequences. Such quasispecies are a prime target for natural selection." Also, there is rarely much if any variation in the progeny from a single cell – it does not say "host cells". The wording was carefully chosen. Graham Beards (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Recently, I have for some reason been reading a lot about virus infections. And I realise that nothing I have seen addressed a really fundamental question (well, actually, two questions that may be inter-related)...

I have read that the initial dose of a virus (Covid-19, but others too) affects the severity of the illness. So someone who is initially exposed to many sources of infection (say, a doctor surrounded by Corvid-infected patients) is more likely to have serious symptoms than someone who gets infected "gently".

So question 1 is: why is that?

There is no reliable source to support this claim. Graham Beards (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read that when a virus infects a cell, that cell will produce between "a few hundred" and "tens of thousands" of new virus particles. So having an "intense" initial exposure -- which infects you with hundreds of times as many viruses as a "gentle" one -- still only leaves you with as many virus particles as you'd have after a single reproductive cycle within your body.

So why is inhaling one infected droplet and then having one cell spewing out many hundreds of viruses inside you less dangerous that (say) inhaling dozens of infected droplets?

It's not. Graham Beards (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. Your earlier comment says there is now reliable evidence that a high initial dose is more serious than a "small" initial infection. But here, when I ask about why a large initial dose is worse than a small one left for a generation, you're saying "it's not" (worse). RobertII (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That was an obvious typo. Graham Beards (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RobertII (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Exactly what changes or additions to the article are you offering? Graham Beards (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Graham: I'm not offering any changes or additions -- I don't know the area well enough. I'm trying to contribute to the article by suggesting an addition that I believe would greatly improve it, and I'm hoping to prompt someone knowledgeable to augment it. RobertII (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

RobertII, there are some publications claiming what you mentioned[5][6][7] but I don't know if any reach Wikipedia's MEDRS standard. The explanation I saw was that the adaptive immune system is relatively slow to respond to a new pathogen, so if the initial viral load is enough to overwhelm the innate immune system, the virus is able to replicate a lot more before the adaptive system kicks in, causing a more severe illness. This does seem worth researching further and documenting in the article if sufficient sourcing is out there. It also explains why some people recover from infection without developing antibodies. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would help the article if the "structure" section mentioned which structure applies to covid-19. It seems like information that readers might be looking for. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Its a general article that applies to all viruses. If you're interested in covid-19 you might want to read Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Structural biology. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look there, but I still think adding or cross-referencing it would help the general article since sars-cov-2 is the virus most on people's minds right now. It's similar to how the general article President of the United States has a picture of the current president, and for that matter sars-cov-2 is now the infobox picture in the virus article. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Added: ok, I looked, but it didn't help. The "structure" section of this article says "In general, there are four main morphological virus types..." but neither article says which type Sars-cov-2 belongs to. That's the info I was hoping someone could add. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added it to Enveloped. Graham Beards (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The virion is mis-formatted. Can somebody please fix it? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circli (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, it needed a purge. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Under the paragraph Genome, it is stated that the "NCBI Virus genome database has more than 75,000 complete genome sequences as of 2015". The cited source redirects you to the main page of NCBI Virus, but I would like to verify this and if possible update this to 2020. Does anyone know where the NCBI lists the total number of genome sequences? TheBartgry (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have updated the total and the citation. Graham Beards (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.TheBartgry (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In == Role in evolution ==

• Broadly per WP:SCIRS, suggest PMID 31032941^[1] (no COI) as an appropriate and pertinent update for the sourcing (with free access) of the opening sentence.
• Suggest using TEMPLATE:Further rather than TEMPLATE:Main, with an additional link to Phage (given the diversity of content in Horizontal gene transfer)

Specifically, request this edit (from this):

== Role in evolution == {{Further|Horizontal gene transfer|Phage}} Viruses are an important natural means of transferring genes between different species, which increases [[genetic diversity]] and drives evolution.<ref name=Broecker2019>{{cite journal |vauthors=Broecker F, Moelling K |title=What viruses tell us about evolution and immunity: beyond Darwin? |journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |volume=1447 |issue=1 |pages=53–68 |date=2019 |pmid=31032941 |pmc=6850104 |doi=10.1111/nyas.14097 |doi-access=free}}</ref> ...

Cheers, 86.130.101.50 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added the Broecker citation. I don't think any template changes are needed. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SARS-CoV-2 without background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to edit what covid truly is. The page is 100% wrong. Jason 81911 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to change and what reliable sources will you cite? Graham Beards (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Living because they also contains genetic material as like we do but there genetic material half of our's because they have RNA instead of DNA that's why they act as a non living outside of a host body. 103.61.252.93 (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards, You reverted my edit #1061475765, where I wrote changes based on the article in the Merriam-Webster. To describe your reason, please. (May be You has bad opinion about this source?) --Grumbler eburg (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The information was already there, "The word is from the Latin neuter vīrus referring to poison and other noxious liquids,". Your edit did not add anything and was not an improvement. Graham Beards (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards Can you clarify the revision? Haddarr (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what sources do you have for the inclusion of "may be forced", not "is forced" as the virus may simply integrate into the genome. 2. Some viruses are DNA-RNA hybrids, thus "or a hybrid of both" 3. The cited article does not call them "self-replicators" and they are not "self" replicators"? By integrating in the genome, the cell is later forced to copy the DNA. The cited article specifically users the term "replicators", in this context "self" is understood as meaning "replicating themselves" by use of the cell's machinery.Graham Beards (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Viruses do not necessarily force the cell to replicate themselves, endogenous retrovirus just integrate into the genome without overriding the cell replication machinery and in some cases remain perpetually. [EDIT: And the lead is not just referring to copying integrated vial DNA as you rebut me with, it's saying "a host cell is forced to rapidly produce thousands of copies of the original virus". This is evidently referring to the lytic phase of the viral cycle.] Some viruses are even mutualist and so don't cause the cell to overexpress them to the point of lysis https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100936118.

For now, forget about the hybrid thing. Double-checking the source I was recalling, it was talking about mobile genetic elements in general. "MGE genomes are represented by all known types of nucleic acids: single-stranded (ss)RNA, dsRNA, ssDNA, dsDNA, and DNA-RNA hybrids." Eugene Koonin et al., "Viruses Defined by the Position of the Virosphere within the Replicator Space".

The cited article calls viruses "replicators", not "self-replicators". That viruses "replicate themselves" rather than "are passively replicated by the cellular machinery" is a highly debatable distinction within the field of virology and so I think should not simply be asserted in the lead 10.1016/j.shpsc.2016.02.017. Haddarr (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

An extension on the self-replicator thing: the new 2021 paper on the current definition of what a virus is, accepted by the ICTV, uses the term "semiautonomous replicators" rather than "self-replicators" (https://www.doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00193-20, pg. 18). This seems substantially more accurate to me and should be used in the page instead. Haddarr (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia entry not a review paper for experts. There are readers who come to this article (and it's introductory article) with little knowledge about what viruses are. An article about all viruses needs to make generalisations and does not need to accommodate retrotransposons and ICTV declarations, particularly in the Lead. We can't riddle the article with "apart from" (this that and the the other). With this in mind, I am always happy to discuss improvements to the article. - Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, sure. My proposition is to change "is forced" to "may be forced" and "self-replicators" into "replicators" to avoid confusion. I don't believe this will muddy the language / overcomplicate anything. Haddarr (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have changed "self-replicators" to "replicators" and I changed the link to Viral replication. With regard to "may be forced", I don't like this as it sounds like it is a rare event when the opposite is the case. As a compromise I have changed it to "When infected, a host cell is often forced to rapidly produce thousands of copies of the original virus", which allows for exceptions. -Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Haddarr (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards Hello again. Is it your impression 'See alsos' are only for topics not discussed in the main body? I feel as though at least some virus-like or viroid-like particle deserves a 'See also'. I just created Retrozyme (new retrotransposon family apparently ancestor of viroids, satellite RNAs and, directly or indirectly, the Ribozyviria realm). If not viroids, do you have objections to adding retrozyme to the see also? Haddarr (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, "See Also" sections are only for topics not linked in the body. Viroids are described and linked. Adding retrozyme would be useful. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Haddarr (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change The treatment of chronic carriers of the hepatitis B virus by using similar strategies that include lamivudine and other anti-viral drugs have been developed.

to Treatments for chronic carriers of the hepatitis B virus by using similar strategies that include lamivudine and other anti-viral drugs have been developed. 47.204.131.116 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I've improved it by making it read "The treatment of chronic carriers of the hepatitis B virus has also been developed by using similar strategies that include lamivudine and other anti-viral drugs.". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)