Talk:Prion

I'll leave it up to those who monitor this Wiki page to add this in:

The newly described addition to the prion disease canon, Shy-Drager syndrome (SDS) or multiple system atrophy (MSA), was first recognised in the early 1960s and has many features in common with Parkinson's disease.

The most important of these is that a protein known as α-synuclein (α-syn) accumulates in the brain, in both Parkinson's and SDS/MSA.

from: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-newly-discovered-brain-disease-may-point-to-something-disturbing-about-alzheimers-and-parkinsons-2015-9

"The word prion, coined in 1982 by Stanley B. Prusiner—derived from the words protein and infection, hence prion—is short for "proteinaceous infectious particle",[2] in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to other prions.[3]"

So a prion can transmit its conformation to OTHER PRIONS? That doesn't even make sense. It should be:

"...in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to OTHER (as yet normal) PROTEINS."

71.139.160.208 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the wording isn't right. I changed "to other prions" to "to other proteins", which corrects the inaccuracy, but there might be even better wording. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you too, after all, Multiple system atrophy was discovered to be a prion disease even though the prion is not prion protein PrP.Spidersmilk (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jytdog: Sections 6 and 7 are both titled "Research". Perhaps you can review that too? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

fixed, sorry for the mistake. thanks for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given that prions have been linked to MSA the lede should be changed to reflect that they aren't all associated with TSEs. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Went ahead and made the change.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

User: Ryan nmr. Read the very first words of the very first paragraph, very slowly. Do not skip anything. Sound out the IPA. Click the little "1". Click on the little speaker and listen. And then tell me exactly what is missing from this article. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

70.74.120.239 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Dear User Jytdog, Please do not be condescending. The first sentence shows "Pri" which every person (who has not read the "pronunciation" link) incorrectly thinks is Pry. No one clicks on the little 1, nor pays attention to the proper sounding. University students are referencing this page and mistakenly using Pry-on. The addition that I made leaves nothing to chance. However, since the first sentence is correct as you have indicated (perhaps assuming something?). I would be willing to simply include the 1982 Science paper with the original reference and get back to work. Deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan nmr (talk • contribs) 23:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC) ps I'm not trying to "edit war" I'm trying to make a contribution. Why does the addition and reference cause a problem? Is there a space limit? Thanks for making my first ever wikipedia contribution experience so pleasant. 70.74.120.239 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

We cannot control for stupidity nor aggression. and we don't repeat things twice in the lead. I've replaced oxford with a better ref. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, Would it be possible to add the actual 1982 reference (see above for the DOI) from the Journal of Science where Prof. Prusiner actually wrote "...prion (pronounced pree-on)..."? While the 2012 and 2015 references in the first paragraph are excellent and much better than the biography, it is always best practice to reference the original paper rather than subsequent articles. Ryan nmr (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

In Wikipedia we use sources like the 1982 paper sparingly; they are what we call WP:PRIMARY sources and secondary sources (literature reviews etc) are preferred, here in Wikipedia - Wikipedia is very different from other kinds of scientific publishing. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

doi:10.1128/CMR.00046-15 JFW | T@lk 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

A friend recently told me there were good prions. But he couldn't point me at any references. If sources can be found, this would be great to add to this article. — Lentower (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some prions can pass beneficial traits to yeast for better survival. That would not be good for hosts and I would not call them "good prions". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The yeasts are the hosts? — Lentower (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, the yeasts are parasites of the host, which is trying to kill them.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some people are referring to PrPc as "the normal prion"^[1]. Who could blame them? If you don't like mystery acronyms but find "normally folded cellular prion protein" to be something of a mouthful, what's to be done? One answer is to call it "normal cellular prion protein," which is not quite so confusing. Page Notes (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do they get broken down by soil bacteria? What about thermophilic composting? Can they filter through the soil of leach fields, etc.? What breaks them down in nature? Thanks. Bio-CLC (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Bio-CLC: Overwhelming evidence shows that prions resist degradation and persist in the environment for years. Proteases do not degrade them, and I doubt anyone has found a natural degradation manner. Experimental evidence shows that unbound prions degrade over time, while soil-bound prions remain at stable or increasing levels, suggesting that prions likely accumulate in the environment: The Ecology of Prions. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rowan Forest: Thanks for the quick response, Rowan. That is scary. Is this in the main article? I did not find it. Please consider adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bio-CLC (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have hidden the final paragraph of the Lead (which begins "Recent scientific observations show"). I have a full copy of the cited review by Mabbott et al. which I will use for verification. Some of the other (primary) sources used do not comply with WP:MEDRS and might have to be excluded unless secondary sources can be found that confirm the statements based on them. I'll return to this after I have read the review. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This section is very outdated (around ten years old) and much of it is sourced to primary research reports. I intend revise this section in the light of recent secondary sources. Graham Beards (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have been unable to find any contemporary WP:MEDRS compliant sources to support the inclusion of this section. Most of which is based on primary reports from around a decade ago. I have been WP:BOLD and deleted this section.Graham Beards (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can't really see any major link between viruses and prions other than a bit on how they *may* have antiviral properties, so I don't think the link to the virus portal should be on the page.GenericName784 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Must this section really sound so ghoulish? Is the section necessary at all?

Agreed - this section seems inappropriate in multiple ways, and I think it should be removed. For one, tone-wise it reads as if it is promoting the use of prions as bioweapons, especially since it is not describing any previous use as such (of which there is none). On top of that, it just seems highly unnecessary and tangential to the focus of the article. Polynumeric (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm the user who started that section. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia _DOES NOT_ censor anything. Here is the quote from the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not-page: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." --Pek~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree it's a thing to be taught that may be necessary. Wikipedia DOES NOT INCLUDE censorship Random kid who likes science (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

What is metabolism 2409:4071:4E8E:F3B8:0:0:8589:4F15 (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

metabolism is not in the article. You need to be more specific. Graham Beards (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

>Amyloids are also responsible for several other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.[12][13]

wasn't that found to be wrong recently? 2A02:8070:6287:E0C0:7069:2168:A092:FD4E (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The link for Citation #63 goes to a website called "men's journal", so it should be fixed, but it appears a lot in the article, so we might have to work together to fix it. TypoEater (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply