![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
|
Is the genome of ssDNA viruses assumed to have a positive orientation (i.e., same as the corresponding mRNA) unless otherwise specified? In reviewing the Baltimore Class II virus families on Viralzone and ICTV, I note that they usually don't specify positive or negative, except when the do -- ?? Compare the following articles on Viralzone:
Smacoviridae: doesn't specify positive or negative.
Anelloviridae: specifies negative.
Spiraviridae: specifies positive.
Bidnaviridae: "Equal amount of positive and negative strands are encapsidated."
So, the question arises, why is Class II, ssDNA viruses, one big class with both positive and negative DNAs, whereas for ssRNA viruses, the positives and negatives are given separate classes?
Anyway, this positive/negative issue needs to be clarified here, I would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:648D:D753:3EA1:A647 ( talk) 18:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I previously redirected this article to Baltimore classification#DNA viruses as part of updating and reorganizing Baltimore group articles, but my redirect was undone. I'm starting this section to get opinions on what people think should be done with this article. As is, the bulk of this article is unsourced, outdated, or is miscellaneous information that would not be included in a higher quality article. A complete rewrite is needed, but doing so may be duplicating information from Baltimore classification as well as the three DNA virus realm articles (Duplo/Mono/Varidnaviria), though it may be beneficial to have some information from those four articles in one place. Should this article be kept and rewritten/improved or redirected? Velayinosu ( talk) 01:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
|
Is the genome of ssDNA viruses assumed to have a positive orientation (i.e., same as the corresponding mRNA) unless otherwise specified? In reviewing the Baltimore Class II virus families on Viralzone and ICTV, I note that they usually don't specify positive or negative, except when the do -- ?? Compare the following articles on Viralzone:
Smacoviridae: doesn't specify positive or negative.
Anelloviridae: specifies negative.
Spiraviridae: specifies positive.
Bidnaviridae: "Equal amount of positive and negative strands are encapsidated."
So, the question arises, why is Class II, ssDNA viruses, one big class with both positive and negative DNAs, whereas for ssRNA viruses, the positives and negatives are given separate classes?
Anyway, this positive/negative issue needs to be clarified here, I would think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:AC08:A600:648D:D753:3EA1:A647 ( talk) 18:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I previously redirected this article to Baltimore classification#DNA viruses as part of updating and reorganizing Baltimore group articles, but my redirect was undone. I'm starting this section to get opinions on what people think should be done with this article. As is, the bulk of this article is unsourced, outdated, or is miscellaneous information that would not be included in a higher quality article. A complete rewrite is needed, but doing so may be duplicating information from Baltimore classification as well as the three DNA virus realm articles (Duplo/Mono/Varidnaviria), though it may be beneficial to have some information from those four articles in one place. Should this article be kept and rewritten/improved or redirected? Velayinosu ( talk) 01:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)