This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Viroid | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Superdomain: | Biota
|
Domain: | Aphanobionta
|
Superkingdom: | Acytota
|
Kingdom: | Virus
|
I find that there are references to domain virus, and aphanobionta to categorize these things (the domains covering the same content) ; and there's the superkingdom Acytota 132.205.15.43 20:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reluctantly reverted the addition of To determine whether an infectious agent is a viroid, culture the substance by itself on a nutritive medium, away from plant cells.
While this would certainly distinguish viroids (which wouldn't grow) from bacteria (which would grow on the media), this does nothing to distinguish between (RNA) viroids and DNA viruses -- right?
So how does one determine whether an infectious agent is a viroid? Or, in practice, do we not bother -- we just use the "culture" test to decide whether to use an antibacterial treatment, or instead the other treatment that generically applies to virus, viroid, virusoid, etc. ?
The virus page mentions RNA viruses and DNA viruses. What is the difference between a "viroid" and a "RNA virus"? Or are they the same thing?
-- DavidCary 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a list of unique viroids including their assigned abbreviations (via ICTVdB Index of Viruses):
(ADFVd) Apple dimple fruit viroid (AFCVd) Apple fruit crinkle viroids (ASSVd) Apple scar skin viroid (AGVd) Australian grapevine viroid (ASBVd) Avocado sunblotch viroid (BluMVd-RNA) Blueberry mosaic viroid (BuSVd) Burdock stunt viroid (CChMVd) Chrysanthemum chlorotic mottle viroid (CSVd) Chrysanthemum stunt viroid (CBLVd) Citrus bent leaf viroid (CEVd) Citrus exocortis viroid (CbVd) Citrus viroid III (CVd-IV) Citrus viroid IV (CVd-OS) Citrus viroid original source (CCCVd) Coconut cadang-cadang viroid (CTiVd) Coconut tinangaja viroid (CbVd-1) Coleus blumei viroid 1 (CbVd-2) Coleus blumei viroid 2 (CbVd-3) Coleus blumei viroid 3 (CLVd) Columnea latent viroid (ELVd) Eggplant latent viroid (GYSVd-1) Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 (GYSVd-2) Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2 (HpLVd) Hop latent viroid (HpSVd) Hop stunt viroid (IrVd-1) Iresine viroid 1 (MPVd) Mexican papita viroid (NGSVd) Nicotiana glutinosa stunt viroid (PLMVd) Peach latent mosaic viroid (PBCVd) Pear blister canker viroid (PPMMoVd) Pigeon pea mosaic mottle viroid (PSTVd) Potato spindle tuber viroid (TASVd) Tomato apical stunt viroid (ToBTVd) Tomato bunchy top viroid (TCDVd)/(TPMVd) Tomato planta macho viroid
Van der Hoorn 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise this is a rather specialised article, but for a non-expert in biology it's relatively easy to find oneself here when looking at the most primitive forms of life/pseudo-life, as the article on virus links to this. However, on reading the intro, it's very difficult to discern what exactly a viroid is. If you assume that anyone getting here has a reasonable knowledge of what a virus is, and (roughly) what it does and how it is composed, then a short starter section comparing and contrasting viroids to traditional virii would be a lot of help to a passing reader.
Unfortunately, this is not a very active article, but if anyone reading this understands the basics of this subject, even if you don't consider yourself an expert, I urge you to take a few minutes to add some intro-level description to the opening paragraph. Every little change helps. Jovial Air ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This article begins by saying, "Viroids are plant pathogens...", and then under "Pathology" it describes Hepatitis D, a human pathogen. In the ICTV (the virus database), Hepatitis D is listed as a ssRNA virus, though there are publications that list hepatitis delta in parallel with viroids. [1] Clearly, this article needs work. I'm not a viroid expert, so I'm going to add a reference in the first paragraph to hepatitis delta having similar properties, link to the hepatitis D article, and delete the Pathology section. Perhaps there should be some content on Pathology of viroids, but I don't know what that would be. Scray ( talk) 09:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The sentense "without the protein coat that is typical for viruses.[1]" is wrong, There are indeed at least three virus families that do not encode for any capsid or coat proteins: Hypoviridae, Endornaviridae and Narnaviridae. The fact that viroids do not encode a capsid is not linked to their non-classification in viruses. Reference: Capsid-Less RNA Viruses http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0023269/abstract Philippe Le Mercier ( talk) 11:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we not get a few pictures from electron-microsopy? I figure it's nothing fancy, given that it has only about 2000 base pairs, and may look like a small plasmid (though it is ssRNA), but still - pictures folks! We want EM-pictures! 84.112.136.52 ( talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
To editor who wishes EM-pictures of the viroid: I am sorry for the delay in answering your pertinent request. Answer: If you look at my portrait on the Wikipedia "Theodor Diener" page, you will see to the right of my head an EM picture displaying a mixture of non-denatured, double-stranded viral DNA molecules (the long strands) and equally non-denatured viroid RNA (the short strands, with one located to the right of my face, where my finger touches ir. This picture comes from the first EM study of a viroid. It confirmed at the time the double-stranded nature of non-denatured viroid molecules, as well confirmed their length. As you predicted, aside from these features, the EM pictures doesn't show any details of the viroid structure [1] I hope rhis answers your question. TOD
Seems User:Dienerto ( contribs), without discussion, has been rewriting several articles (ie, Viroid; RNA world hypothesis; Potato spindle tuber viroid; Circular RNA; Non-cellular life) - in order to promote himself, his own studies and his own WP:POV - in addition - seems the editor is attempting to remove references to other studies, again without discussion, that may not agree with his own studies or WP:POV - the editor may (or may not) be correct in the contents - a closer look at the edits may be indicated - nonetheless - possible issues of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:OWN, and WP:SPA may (or may not?) apply - comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - my present position on one of the concerns => the " Carl Zimmer reference" [1] should remain in the articles (per WP:NPOV & related) - this reference seems very relevant to the articles - readers can then sort out, based on cited references from other WP:Reliable Sources, the better understanding for themselves - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Drbogdan: I disagree, I think we CAN achieve a consensus. You have identified the problem: the viroid page needs a better introduction. I suggest we use as such the first three paragraphs of Zimmer's NYT piece, which are excellent, quote Zimmer, together with what is now refs [3]and [4](but delete [5], which is redundant and not a real publication anyway) and follow with the description of viroids' properties, etc. If you agree with this general outline, I shall rewrite the page. Dienerto ( talk) 09:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Dienerto ( talk) 09:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Drbogdan: Thank you for your suggestion, which I was going to follow anyway. Here is my corrected intro to viroids: Dienerto o Drbogdan: Thank you for your suggestions, which, of course, are correct. Below I have broken up the text into Introduction, History, Molecular Properties, and Living Relics of the RNA World?
VIROIDS
"Viroids are the smallest infectious pathogens known, consisting solely of short strands of circular, single-stranded RNA without protein coats. They are mostly plant pathogens, some of which are of economical importance."
History
The viroid story starts early in the 20th century, when symptoms of a previously unknown potato disease were noticed in farmers’ New York and New Jersey fields. Because tubers on affected plants become elongated and miss-shaped, they named it the potato spindle tuber disease.
Scientists soon showed that symptoms appeared on plants onto which pieces from affected plants had been budded---that the disease therefore was caused by a transmissible pathogenic agent. However, they couldn’t identify a fungus or bacterium consistently associated with symptom-bearing plants and therefore, as was then the custom, placed the disease into a grab-bag type category called virus diseases.
Despite numerous attempts over the years, by a number of scientists, to isolate and purify the assumed virus, using increasingly sophisticated methods, these were uniformly unsuccessful when applied to extracts from potato spindle tuber disease-afflicted plants.
Until, that is, when Theodor O. Diener, a plant pathologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pioneering Laboratory for Plant Virology at Beltsville, Maryland, showed in 1971 that the agent was not a virus, but a totally unexpected novel type of pathogen, one-80th the size of typical viruses, for which he proposed the term “Viroid.”[1][2]
In experiments stretching over ten years, Dr. Diener had obtained conclusive evidence that the potato spindle tuber viroid consists solely of a single-stranded, circular RNA thread without protein coat. He and other scientists have since identified 30-odd diseases of crop, ornamental, and wild plants, as viroid-, not virus-caused, as had been assumed.
Molecular Properties
Parallel to agriculture-directed studies, more basic scientific research has elucidated many of viroids’ physical, chemical, and macromolecular properties. Thus, viroids have been shown to consist of short stretches (a few hundred nucleobases) of single-stranded RNA. Unlike most viruses, viroids don’t have a protein coat. Compared with other infectious plant pathogens, viroids are extremely small in size, ranging from 246 to 467 nucleobases; they thus consist of fewer than 10,000 atoms. In comparison, the genome of the smallest known viruses capable of causing an infection by themselves are around 2,000 nucleobases long.
In 1976, Sänger et al[3] presented evidence that potato spindle tuber viroid is a “single-stranded, covalently closed, circular RNA molecule, existing as a highly base-paired rod-like structure"—--believed to be the first such molecule described. Circular RNA, unlike linear RNA, forms a covalently closed continuous loop, in which the 3' and 5' ends present in linear RNA molecules have been joined together. Sänger et al. also provided evidence for the true circularity of viroids by finding that the RNA could not be phosphorylated at the 5’ terminus. Then, in other tests, they failed to find even one free 3’ end, which ruled out the possibility of the molecule having two 3’ ends. Viroids thus are true circular RNAs.
The single-strandedness and circularity of viroids has been confirmed by electron microscopy[4] and the complete nucleotide sequence of potato spindle tuber viroid has been determined.[5] PSTV was the first pathogen of a eukaryotic organism for which the complete molecular structure has been established.
Viroid RNA does not code for any protein.[6] It is replicated by RNA polymerase II, a host cell enzyme normally associated with synthesis of messenger RNA from DNA, which instead catalyzes "rolling circle synthesis” of new RNA, using the viroid RNA as template. Some viroids are ribozymes, having catalytic properties which allow self-cleavage and ligation of unit-size genomes from larger replication intermediates.[7] .
Living relics of the RNA World?
With Diener’s 1989 hypothesis[8]---claiming that viroids are more plausible candidates than introns or other RNAs considered in the past as “living relics” of a hypothetical, non-cellular RNA world---viroids have attained potential significance far beyond plant plant pathology to evolutionary biology, by representing the most plausible macromolecules known capable of explaining crucial intermediate steps in the evolution of life from inanimate matter to life as we know it today.
While Diener’s hypothesis was dormant for 25 years, it has recently been resurrected in a review[9] and its plausibility as a living relic of the hypothetical RNA world further enhanced by additional characteristics of viroids and viroid-like satellite viruses. Flores et al. summarized Diener’s arguments supporting his hypothesis and combined these with two additional ones (2 and 4). These properties include: (1) viroid’s small size, imposed by error-prone replication; (2) their high G + C content, which increases stability and replication fidelity; (3) their circular structure, which assures complete replication without genomic tags; (4) existence of structural periodicity, which permits modular assembly into enlarged genomes; (5) their lack of protein-coding ability, consistent with a ribosome-free habitat; and (6) replication mediated in some by ribozymes—the fingerprint of the RNA world.[9][10]
References
1. Diener TO (1971). "Potato spindle tuber "virus". IV. A replicating, low molecular weight RNA". Virology 45 (2): 411–28. doi:10.1016/0042-6822(71)90342-4. PMID 5095900.
2. "ARS Research Timeline - Tracking the Elusive Viroid". 2006-03-02. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
3. Sänger, HL; Klotz, G; Riesner, D; Gross, HJ; Kleinschmidt, AK (1970). "Single-stranded covalently closed circular RNA molecules, existing as highly base-paired rod-like structures". Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA 73 (11): 3852–56.
4. Sogo, JM, Koller T, Diener TO. (1973) “Potato spindle tuber viroid. X. Visualization and size determination by electron microscopy.” Virology.(1973) 55(1):70-80.
5. Gross HJ, Domdey H, Lossow C, Jank P, Raba M, Alberty H, Sänger HL .“(1978) “Nucleotide sequence and secondary structure of potato spindle tuber viroid.” Nature.273, :203-208. . 6. Tsagris EM, de Alba AE, Gozmanova M, Kalantidis K (2008). "Viroids". Cell. Microbiol. 10 (11): 2168–79. doi:10.1111/j.1462-5822.2008.01231.x. PMID 18764915.
7. Daròs JA, Elena SF, Flores R (2006). "Viroids: an Ariadne's thread into the RNA labyrinth". EMBO Rep. 7 (6): 593–8. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400706. PMC 1479586. PMID 16741503.
8. Diener, T.O. (1989). "Circular RNAs: Relics of precellular evolution?". Proc.Natl.Acad,Sci:86, 9370–9374, Retrieved November 1, 2014
9. Flores, R., Gago-Zachert, S., Serra, P., Sanjuan, R., Elena, S.F. (2014). "Viroids: Survivors from the RNA World?". Annual Review of Microbiology 68: 395–414. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
10. Zimmer, Carl (November 12, 2014). "A Tiny Emissary From the Ancient Past". New York Times. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
I look forward to your comments dienerto Dienerto ( talk) 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments - This is too long for an introduction and much belongs in the body of the article, possibly under a History heading. And, it is the custom that the first sentence (or two) provides a definition of the subject. Graham Beards ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
dienerto to Graham Beards: Thank you for pointing out what would obviously be a copyright infringement. How could I not see this myself?! No problem though. I'll work on it today.
This, of course, brings up again the Zimmer NYT piece, whose inclusion as a reference I opposef, because it is, demonstrably, deeply flawed. Already the title, by omitting a question mark, falsely claims that viroids ARE "living relics" of the RNA world, when this is still a hypothesis, not a scientific fact. Then, Zimmer commits an inexcusable disregard of scientific ethics, by not quoting, or even mentioning my 1989 PNAS paper, in which I introduced and substantiated, for the first time, the concept of viroids being "relics of the RNA world" [1], on which Flores et al.'s review paper [2] is based, and which, as a review, properly contains almost no original, new information, but is almost exclusively based, and so recognized by the authors, as a repeat of the reasons given in my 1989 paper. Despite this, Zimmer saw fit to blatantly disregard or even quote my 1989 paper and, when so reminded, arrogantly excused it as the result of "a space problem," (Zimmer's e-mail message). He then falsely gives credit to Flores et al. to have originated the "living relic" hypothesis and claims that it is based on "new research," when, in fact, it is little more than a repeat of the reasons already stated by me in 1989. I quote Flores et al.: "Hereafter we discuss the evidence that supports Diener's claim, summarizing his arguments and supplying others."
In conclusion, the Zimmer paper, being deeply flawed, certainly doesn't deserve to be quoted---despite its superficial attractiveness---and all citations to it, which he willy nilly inserted in Wikipedia. should be deleted. Dienerto ( talk) 12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Drbogdan and Graham Beards;L I didn't know of Wikipedia's WP:RGW policy and will follow your suggestions and requote the Zimmer piece. Thank you for all your help in this matter Dienerto ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Graham Beards: I am most grateful to you for helping me with the viroid page, but I also must express my embarrassment for requiring so much help with it, i.e., my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's formatting house style. This is in several ways a new experience for me. I do agree, though, with Wikipedia's open, anti-elitist, editing policy and am, after some soul-searching, happy to conform to it. Thank you for your kind words.Dienerto Dienerto ( talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Graham Beards: Great job! I sugges7 only a few minor changes/corrections. as follows: Introduction Paragraph 2, line 2: changed to: “... at the U.S Department of Agriculture's Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland,,,” Transmission Line 1; “...following ... mechanical damage to plants as a result of horticultural or agricultural practices.” Note to Editor: I have mistakenly deleted the second sentence of “Transmission" and don’t find it any more to reinstate it. Could you please insert it again? Sorry Thank you so much for all your help, Dr.Beards. Dienerto ( talk) 10:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Dr Beards: yes: De Bokx, J. A and P. G. M. Piron, “Transmission of potato spindle tuber viroid by aphids,” Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology,1981, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 31-34 "Abstract Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach),Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) andMyzus persicae (Sulzer) were used for transmission experiments in laboratory and glasshouse. As inoculum served PSTV-containing tomato foliage and artificial diets containing purified PSTV. It is concluded that M. euphorbiae can transmit PSTV in a non-persistent way." I believe this article is referred to in the lost second sentence of the "Transmission" section (which I did not write), but I cannot be sure. Best wishes Dienerto ( talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Pasted from my Talk Page Dr Beards, For unknown reasons, I have not been able to enter anything in my talk page for several days now. Above all, I wanted to thank you for your kind offer to help me reinsert the missing computer codes in the references, which I so ignorantly deleted. I tried to follow your instruction and ask for help with it on the viroid's Talk page. Trouble is, I couldn't write on that page either and was, therefore, stuck. I then found your talk page and described my problem, but I didn't hear from you, so, apparently you somehow didn't receive my comments there either.
Aside from the reinsertion of the computer codes, I have a problem with reference No. 1, Wolfram's book. I have read portions of it, after which I have no idea what possible connection its content could have with viroids, because it concerns exclusively matters of Particle Physics. While I am not a physicist, further investigation revealed that both the book and Wolfram himself (a self-pronounced genius) are most controversial. One atomic physicist summarized the book as follows: "What is new [in it] is not true and what is true, is not new."
In view of Wikipedia's expressed policy of tolerating demonstrably incorrect statements (such as the ones in Zimmer's New York Times piece), I wonder what can be done to delete the reference to Wolfram's book, which is obviously uncalled for. I don't know who or when this ref. was inserted, evidently without discussion, but whoever did so should be required to justify its inclusion. With kind regards and hope that we can now finalize the viroid page to everybody's satisfaction.96.26.126.134 (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Dr Diener,
I have replaced the reference in question with this one:
Lewin, Benjamin.; Krebs, Jocelyn E.; Kilpatrick, Stephen T.; Goldstein, Elliott S.; Lewin, Benjamin. Genes IX. (2011). Lewin's genes. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett. p. 23. ISBN 9780763766320.
As you probably know, this is a highly regarded textbook.
I cannot find a reliable source for the number of atoms, so I have deleted this statement.
I don't understand why you are having difficulties posting your comments. In any case, please remember to login with your username and password otherwise you posts will be anonymous and you will reveal you IP address to others. Graham Beards ( talk) 15:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I came to this page from the note at RNA world hypothesis. The information on viroids was 5 paragraphs inserted into the lead ( WP:UNDUE), so I moved it into a separate section. I'll let you guys decide what should be done with it. :-) Sunrise ( talk) 07:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Added: I didn't realize this was from November. I'm moving this into a new section and pinging User:Graham Beards, User:Drbogdan, User:Dienerto. (Dr. Diener, if you want to get someone's attention as you intended with the note on your talk page, you can make sure they get a notification by linking their usernames like I have just done.) Thanks! Sunrise ( talk) 08:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it says "Diener's hypothesis was mostly forgotten until 2014". But on Google Scholar I found that the paper was being cited regularly after publication. -- ImproveEverything ( talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I found the list given of the six arguments of Dr. Diener, that were summarized etc by Flores et al, a little confusing so would like to ask @ Dienerto, Graham Beards, Drbogdan, and Sunrise: if the following, a precis of the Flores text which expands those given here slightly, would be acceptable in its place:
1. the intrinsic error-prone replication of primitive RNA systems led to limitation of the size of their master sequences to avoid the extinction of “error catastrophe”.
2. viroids increase replication fidelity of RNA systems through higher thermodynamic stability. Furthermore, ribozymes can be formed by the two strands and both function as templates.
3. reiterative copying of their circular genomes would avoid loss of genetic information. This rolling-circle replication would result in multiple copies of the genetic information, a condition likely favored in primitive replicons with a high mutation rate.
4. the sequence of some viroids exhibits a structural periodicity characterized by repeat units of different length. This periodicity points to a mechanism by which larger genomes could have evolved. The recombinant nature of some viroids, which are formed by fragments present in other viroids, is consistent with this view.
5. viroids are non-protein-coding RNAs which traces their origin back to the first age of the RNA World, wherein no ribosomes existed.
6. (and most important) viroids have the catalytic activity required for the three steps of viroid replication — cleavage, ligation, and RNA polymerization (in in vitro evolution studies) — via hammerhead ribozymes.
LookingGlass ( talk) 17:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Just wondering; aren't infectious proteins, eg Prions, smaller than viroids? It seems to me that the introductory sentence is false; since I am new to editing Wikipedia, I didn't want to make an edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynexo ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Just rehashing a question from the previous section. Going to repost the question:
In what sense are viroids smaller than prions? If we assume 1 nucleotide in RNA is 325 Da, the smallest viroid listed on this page (246 nucleotides) would weigh roughly 80 kDa. This article [1] suggests that the human prion protein is only 36 kDa. This would suggest that prions are indeed smaller than viroids. Is there something I'm missing on this?
Marcconnell95 ( talk) 15:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I worked on this article with Theodor Otto Diener and although this affords me no editorial privileges, I have an interest in it. In my humble opinion more recent edits have not been an improvement overall and my requests for changes to be discussed here, on the Talk Page, seem to have been ignored. Of course we need to keep the article up to date with tertiary sources, which should be presented well with a consistent citation style. Recent edits in this regard have not been an improvement. Why do we need page numbers and quotations from fairly short papers? If we do, there are better ways of citing them. I am always open to arguments but edit warring achieves nothing other than animosity. Graham Beards ( talk) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
In summary, I think we need to update the citations, some of which are quite old and we should do this taking WP:CITEVAR to account and stick to the established citation style. Sadly, we no have Dr Diener's guidance on more recent developments in the field, ribozyme activity for example, but these seems reasonably straight forward. The prose needs some work to eliminate redundancies and jargon. I have made a start on all these issues. Graham Beards ( talk) 17:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
My removal of this paragraph has been objected to. I am sorry for not seeking consensus on this.
As there are no objections, I will delete the paragraph for the reasons I have given above. Graham Beards ( talk) 12:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Why was ds RNA sequencing needed?– !? Wu 2015 is provided. If you want more explanatory text then you could have added it.
What is meant by "next generation"?– !? There is
[[next generation dsRNA sequencing]]
and Wu to answer that. If the page number is needed it is {{rp|434}}
.MorozovCan you quote where Morozov says there are truly endogenous dsRNAs? I find only exogenous if we note that they use endogenous to mean transexpressed. More importantly I am suspicious of this journal and the citations are not wonderful although there is Amari & Niehl 2020. [1] However A&N cites Morozov only in passing and explicitly only for
exogenous application ofdsRNAs.
And noise is jargon which some readers might think it means noise, which it certainly does not.Some readers will mistake many things. That is not a reason to remove instead of improve. We certainly could make that
[[statistical noise|noise]]
. I did not do so because the readership for this page would understand that and I was working quickly. You understood well enough to know it certainly does notafter all. Invasive Spices ( talk) 4 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link), a review and Bester R, Cook G, Breytenbach J, Steyn C, De Bruyn R, Maree HJ (March 2021).
"Towards the validation of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) for routine plant virus diagnostics: measurement of variation linked to HTS detection of citrus viruses and viroids". Virology Journal. 18 (1): 61.
doi:
10.1186/s12985-021-01523-1.
PMC
7986492.
PMID
33752714. {{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 3 (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link). If we are going to included this, we need more than a couple of sentences sourced to a 2015 paper.
Graham Beards (
talk)
11:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
While reading through this article, I found the taxonomy section difficult to decipher, would it be a good idea to add the first species in each genera to the bullet point list to make it easier to read. Yirch ( talk) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Currently - seems there's several wikilinks to the purportedly newly discovered life form "obelisk" - " Obelisk (virology)" and " Obelisk (life form)" and " Obelisk (viroid)" - perhaps some merger(s) would help? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Obelisk (life form) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Viroid | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Superdomain: | Biota
|
Domain: | Aphanobionta
|
Superkingdom: | Acytota
|
Kingdom: | Virus
|
I find that there are references to domain virus, and aphanobionta to categorize these things (the domains covering the same content) ; and there's the superkingdom Acytota 132.205.15.43 20:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reluctantly reverted the addition of To determine whether an infectious agent is a viroid, culture the substance by itself on a nutritive medium, away from plant cells.
While this would certainly distinguish viroids (which wouldn't grow) from bacteria (which would grow on the media), this does nothing to distinguish between (RNA) viroids and DNA viruses -- right?
So how does one determine whether an infectious agent is a viroid? Or, in practice, do we not bother -- we just use the "culture" test to decide whether to use an antibacterial treatment, or instead the other treatment that generically applies to virus, viroid, virusoid, etc. ?
The virus page mentions RNA viruses and DNA viruses. What is the difference between a "viroid" and a "RNA virus"? Or are they the same thing?
-- DavidCary 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a list of unique viroids including their assigned abbreviations (via ICTVdB Index of Viruses):
(ADFVd) Apple dimple fruit viroid (AFCVd) Apple fruit crinkle viroids (ASSVd) Apple scar skin viroid (AGVd) Australian grapevine viroid (ASBVd) Avocado sunblotch viroid (BluMVd-RNA) Blueberry mosaic viroid (BuSVd) Burdock stunt viroid (CChMVd) Chrysanthemum chlorotic mottle viroid (CSVd) Chrysanthemum stunt viroid (CBLVd) Citrus bent leaf viroid (CEVd) Citrus exocortis viroid (CbVd) Citrus viroid III (CVd-IV) Citrus viroid IV (CVd-OS) Citrus viroid original source (CCCVd) Coconut cadang-cadang viroid (CTiVd) Coconut tinangaja viroid (CbVd-1) Coleus blumei viroid 1 (CbVd-2) Coleus blumei viroid 2 (CbVd-3) Coleus blumei viroid 3 (CLVd) Columnea latent viroid (ELVd) Eggplant latent viroid (GYSVd-1) Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 (GYSVd-2) Grapevine yellow speckle viroid 2 (HpLVd) Hop latent viroid (HpSVd) Hop stunt viroid (IrVd-1) Iresine viroid 1 (MPVd) Mexican papita viroid (NGSVd) Nicotiana glutinosa stunt viroid (PLMVd) Peach latent mosaic viroid (PBCVd) Pear blister canker viroid (PPMMoVd) Pigeon pea mosaic mottle viroid (PSTVd) Potato spindle tuber viroid (TASVd) Tomato apical stunt viroid (ToBTVd) Tomato bunchy top viroid (TCDVd)/(TPMVd) Tomato planta macho viroid
Van der Hoorn 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I realise this is a rather specialised article, but for a non-expert in biology it's relatively easy to find oneself here when looking at the most primitive forms of life/pseudo-life, as the article on virus links to this. However, on reading the intro, it's very difficult to discern what exactly a viroid is. If you assume that anyone getting here has a reasonable knowledge of what a virus is, and (roughly) what it does and how it is composed, then a short starter section comparing and contrasting viroids to traditional virii would be a lot of help to a passing reader.
Unfortunately, this is not a very active article, but if anyone reading this understands the basics of this subject, even if you don't consider yourself an expert, I urge you to take a few minutes to add some intro-level description to the opening paragraph. Every little change helps. Jovial Air ( talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This article begins by saying, "Viroids are plant pathogens...", and then under "Pathology" it describes Hepatitis D, a human pathogen. In the ICTV (the virus database), Hepatitis D is listed as a ssRNA virus, though there are publications that list hepatitis delta in parallel with viroids. [1] Clearly, this article needs work. I'm not a viroid expert, so I'm going to add a reference in the first paragraph to hepatitis delta having similar properties, link to the hepatitis D article, and delete the Pathology section. Perhaps there should be some content on Pathology of viroids, but I don't know what that would be. Scray ( talk) 09:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
The sentense "without the protein coat that is typical for viruses.[1]" is wrong, There are indeed at least three virus families that do not encode for any capsid or coat proteins: Hypoviridae, Endornaviridae and Narnaviridae. The fact that viroids do not encode a capsid is not linked to their non-classification in viruses. Reference: Capsid-Less RNA Viruses http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0023269/abstract Philippe Le Mercier ( talk) 11:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we not get a few pictures from electron-microsopy? I figure it's nothing fancy, given that it has only about 2000 base pairs, and may look like a small plasmid (though it is ssRNA), but still - pictures folks! We want EM-pictures! 84.112.136.52 ( talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
To editor who wishes EM-pictures of the viroid: I am sorry for the delay in answering your pertinent request. Answer: If you look at my portrait on the Wikipedia "Theodor Diener" page, you will see to the right of my head an EM picture displaying a mixture of non-denatured, double-stranded viral DNA molecules (the long strands) and equally non-denatured viroid RNA (the short strands, with one located to the right of my face, where my finger touches ir. This picture comes from the first EM study of a viroid. It confirmed at the time the double-stranded nature of non-denatured viroid molecules, as well confirmed their length. As you predicted, aside from these features, the EM pictures doesn't show any details of the viroid structure [1] I hope rhis answers your question. TOD
Seems User:Dienerto ( contribs), without discussion, has been rewriting several articles (ie, Viroid; RNA world hypothesis; Potato spindle tuber viroid; Circular RNA; Non-cellular life) - in order to promote himself, his own studies and his own WP:POV - in addition - seems the editor is attempting to remove references to other studies, again without discussion, that may not agree with his own studies or WP:POV - the editor may (or may not) be correct in the contents - a closer look at the edits may be indicated - nonetheless - possible issues of WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:OWN, and WP:SPA may (or may not?) apply - comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
BRIEF Followup - my present position on one of the concerns => the " Carl Zimmer reference" [1] should remain in the articles (per WP:NPOV & related) - this reference seems very relevant to the articles - readers can then sort out, based on cited references from other WP:Reliable Sources, the better understanding for themselves - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Drbogdan: I disagree, I think we CAN achieve a consensus. You have identified the problem: the viroid page needs a better introduction. I suggest we use as such the first three paragraphs of Zimmer's NYT piece, which are excellent, quote Zimmer, together with what is now refs [3]and [4](but delete [5], which is redundant and not a real publication anyway) and follow with the description of viroids' properties, etc. If you agree with this general outline, I shall rewrite the page. Dienerto ( talk) 09:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Dienerto ( talk) 09:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Drbogdan: Thank you for your suggestion, which I was going to follow anyway. Here is my corrected intro to viroids: Dienerto o Drbogdan: Thank you for your suggestions, which, of course, are correct. Below I have broken up the text into Introduction, History, Molecular Properties, and Living Relics of the RNA World?
VIROIDS
"Viroids are the smallest infectious pathogens known, consisting solely of short strands of circular, single-stranded RNA without protein coats. They are mostly plant pathogens, some of which are of economical importance."
History
The viroid story starts early in the 20th century, when symptoms of a previously unknown potato disease were noticed in farmers’ New York and New Jersey fields. Because tubers on affected plants become elongated and miss-shaped, they named it the potato spindle tuber disease.
Scientists soon showed that symptoms appeared on plants onto which pieces from affected plants had been budded---that the disease therefore was caused by a transmissible pathogenic agent. However, they couldn’t identify a fungus or bacterium consistently associated with symptom-bearing plants and therefore, as was then the custom, placed the disease into a grab-bag type category called virus diseases.
Despite numerous attempts over the years, by a number of scientists, to isolate and purify the assumed virus, using increasingly sophisticated methods, these were uniformly unsuccessful when applied to extracts from potato spindle tuber disease-afflicted plants.
Until, that is, when Theodor O. Diener, a plant pathologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pioneering Laboratory for Plant Virology at Beltsville, Maryland, showed in 1971 that the agent was not a virus, but a totally unexpected novel type of pathogen, one-80th the size of typical viruses, for which he proposed the term “Viroid.”[1][2]
In experiments stretching over ten years, Dr. Diener had obtained conclusive evidence that the potato spindle tuber viroid consists solely of a single-stranded, circular RNA thread without protein coat. He and other scientists have since identified 30-odd diseases of crop, ornamental, and wild plants, as viroid-, not virus-caused, as had been assumed.
Molecular Properties
Parallel to agriculture-directed studies, more basic scientific research has elucidated many of viroids’ physical, chemical, and macromolecular properties. Thus, viroids have been shown to consist of short stretches (a few hundred nucleobases) of single-stranded RNA. Unlike most viruses, viroids don’t have a protein coat. Compared with other infectious plant pathogens, viroids are extremely small in size, ranging from 246 to 467 nucleobases; they thus consist of fewer than 10,000 atoms. In comparison, the genome of the smallest known viruses capable of causing an infection by themselves are around 2,000 nucleobases long.
In 1976, Sänger et al[3] presented evidence that potato spindle tuber viroid is a “single-stranded, covalently closed, circular RNA molecule, existing as a highly base-paired rod-like structure"—--believed to be the first such molecule described. Circular RNA, unlike linear RNA, forms a covalently closed continuous loop, in which the 3' and 5' ends present in linear RNA molecules have been joined together. Sänger et al. also provided evidence for the true circularity of viroids by finding that the RNA could not be phosphorylated at the 5’ terminus. Then, in other tests, they failed to find even one free 3’ end, which ruled out the possibility of the molecule having two 3’ ends. Viroids thus are true circular RNAs.
The single-strandedness and circularity of viroids has been confirmed by electron microscopy[4] and the complete nucleotide sequence of potato spindle tuber viroid has been determined.[5] PSTV was the first pathogen of a eukaryotic organism for which the complete molecular structure has been established.
Viroid RNA does not code for any protein.[6] It is replicated by RNA polymerase II, a host cell enzyme normally associated with synthesis of messenger RNA from DNA, which instead catalyzes "rolling circle synthesis” of new RNA, using the viroid RNA as template. Some viroids are ribozymes, having catalytic properties which allow self-cleavage and ligation of unit-size genomes from larger replication intermediates.[7] .
Living relics of the RNA World?
With Diener’s 1989 hypothesis[8]---claiming that viroids are more plausible candidates than introns or other RNAs considered in the past as “living relics” of a hypothetical, non-cellular RNA world---viroids have attained potential significance far beyond plant plant pathology to evolutionary biology, by representing the most plausible macromolecules known capable of explaining crucial intermediate steps in the evolution of life from inanimate matter to life as we know it today.
While Diener’s hypothesis was dormant for 25 years, it has recently been resurrected in a review[9] and its plausibility as a living relic of the hypothetical RNA world further enhanced by additional characteristics of viroids and viroid-like satellite viruses. Flores et al. summarized Diener’s arguments supporting his hypothesis and combined these with two additional ones (2 and 4). These properties include: (1) viroid’s small size, imposed by error-prone replication; (2) their high G + C content, which increases stability and replication fidelity; (3) their circular structure, which assures complete replication without genomic tags; (4) existence of structural periodicity, which permits modular assembly into enlarged genomes; (5) their lack of protein-coding ability, consistent with a ribosome-free habitat; and (6) replication mediated in some by ribozymes—the fingerprint of the RNA world.[9][10]
References
1. Diener TO (1971). "Potato spindle tuber "virus". IV. A replicating, low molecular weight RNA". Virology 45 (2): 411–28. doi:10.1016/0042-6822(71)90342-4. PMID 5095900.
2. "ARS Research Timeline - Tracking the Elusive Viroid". 2006-03-02. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
3. Sänger, HL; Klotz, G; Riesner, D; Gross, HJ; Kleinschmidt, AK (1970). "Single-stranded covalently closed circular RNA molecules, existing as highly base-paired rod-like structures". Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA 73 (11): 3852–56.
4. Sogo, JM, Koller T, Diener TO. (1973) “Potato spindle tuber viroid. X. Visualization and size determination by electron microscopy.” Virology.(1973) 55(1):70-80.
5. Gross HJ, Domdey H, Lossow C, Jank P, Raba M, Alberty H, Sänger HL .“(1978) “Nucleotide sequence and secondary structure of potato spindle tuber viroid.” Nature.273, :203-208. . 6. Tsagris EM, de Alba AE, Gozmanova M, Kalantidis K (2008). "Viroids". Cell. Microbiol. 10 (11): 2168–79. doi:10.1111/j.1462-5822.2008.01231.x. PMID 18764915.
7. Daròs JA, Elena SF, Flores R (2006). "Viroids: an Ariadne's thread into the RNA labyrinth". EMBO Rep. 7 (6): 593–8. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400706. PMC 1479586. PMID 16741503.
8. Diener, T.O. (1989). "Circular RNAs: Relics of precellular evolution?". Proc.Natl.Acad,Sci:86, 9370–9374, Retrieved November 1, 2014
9. Flores, R., Gago-Zachert, S., Serra, P., Sanjuan, R., Elena, S.F. (2014). "Viroids: Survivors from the RNA World?". Annual Review of Microbiology 68: 395–414. Retrieved November 1, 2014.
10. Zimmer, Carl (November 12, 2014). "A Tiny Emissary From the Ancient Past". New York Times. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
I look forward to your comments dienerto Dienerto ( talk) 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments - This is too long for an introduction and much belongs in the body of the article, possibly under a History heading. And, it is the custom that the first sentence (or two) provides a definition of the subject. Graham Beards ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
dienerto to Graham Beards: Thank you for pointing out what would obviously be a copyright infringement. How could I not see this myself?! No problem though. I'll work on it today.
This, of course, brings up again the Zimmer NYT piece, whose inclusion as a reference I opposef, because it is, demonstrably, deeply flawed. Already the title, by omitting a question mark, falsely claims that viroids ARE "living relics" of the RNA world, when this is still a hypothesis, not a scientific fact. Then, Zimmer commits an inexcusable disregard of scientific ethics, by not quoting, or even mentioning my 1989 PNAS paper, in which I introduced and substantiated, for the first time, the concept of viroids being "relics of the RNA world" [1], on which Flores et al.'s review paper [2] is based, and which, as a review, properly contains almost no original, new information, but is almost exclusively based, and so recognized by the authors, as a repeat of the reasons given in my 1989 paper. Despite this, Zimmer saw fit to blatantly disregard or even quote my 1989 paper and, when so reminded, arrogantly excused it as the result of "a space problem," (Zimmer's e-mail message). He then falsely gives credit to Flores et al. to have originated the "living relic" hypothesis and claims that it is based on "new research," when, in fact, it is little more than a repeat of the reasons already stated by me in 1989. I quote Flores et al.: "Hereafter we discuss the evidence that supports Diener's claim, summarizing his arguments and supplying others."
In conclusion, the Zimmer paper, being deeply flawed, certainly doesn't deserve to be quoted---despite its superficial attractiveness---and all citations to it, which he willy nilly inserted in Wikipedia. should be deleted. Dienerto ( talk) 12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Drbogdan and Graham Beards;L I didn't know of Wikipedia's WP:RGW policy and will follow your suggestions and requote the Zimmer piece. Thank you for all your help in this matter Dienerto ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Graham Beards: I am most grateful to you for helping me with the viroid page, but I also must express my embarrassment for requiring so much help with it, i.e., my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's formatting house style. This is in several ways a new experience for me. I do agree, though, with Wikipedia's open, anti-elitist, editing policy and am, after some soul-searching, happy to conform to it. Thank you for your kind words.Dienerto Dienerto ( talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Graham Beards: Great job! I sugges7 only a few minor changes/corrections. as follows: Introduction Paragraph 2, line 2: changed to: “... at the U.S Department of Agriculture's Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland,,,” Transmission Line 1; “...following ... mechanical damage to plants as a result of horticultural or agricultural practices.” Note to Editor: I have mistakenly deleted the second sentence of “Transmission" and don’t find it any more to reinstate it. Could you please insert it again? Sorry Thank you so much for all your help, Dr.Beards. Dienerto ( talk) 10:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Dienerto to Dr Beards: yes: De Bokx, J. A and P. G. M. Piron, “Transmission of potato spindle tuber viroid by aphids,” Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology,1981, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 31-34 "Abstract Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach),Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) andMyzus persicae (Sulzer) were used for transmission experiments in laboratory and glasshouse. As inoculum served PSTV-containing tomato foliage and artificial diets containing purified PSTV. It is concluded that M. euphorbiae can transmit PSTV in a non-persistent way." I believe this article is referred to in the lost second sentence of the "Transmission" section (which I did not write), but I cannot be sure. Best wishes Dienerto ( talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Pasted from my Talk Page Dr Beards, For unknown reasons, I have not been able to enter anything in my talk page for several days now. Above all, I wanted to thank you for your kind offer to help me reinsert the missing computer codes in the references, which I so ignorantly deleted. I tried to follow your instruction and ask for help with it on the viroid's Talk page. Trouble is, I couldn't write on that page either and was, therefore, stuck. I then found your talk page and described my problem, but I didn't hear from you, so, apparently you somehow didn't receive my comments there either.
Aside from the reinsertion of the computer codes, I have a problem with reference No. 1, Wolfram's book. I have read portions of it, after which I have no idea what possible connection its content could have with viroids, because it concerns exclusively matters of Particle Physics. While I am not a physicist, further investigation revealed that both the book and Wolfram himself (a self-pronounced genius) are most controversial. One atomic physicist summarized the book as follows: "What is new [in it] is not true and what is true, is not new."
In view of Wikipedia's expressed policy of tolerating demonstrably incorrect statements (such as the ones in Zimmer's New York Times piece), I wonder what can be done to delete the reference to Wolfram's book, which is obviously uncalled for. I don't know who or when this ref. was inserted, evidently without discussion, but whoever did so should be required to justify its inclusion. With kind regards and hope that we can now finalize the viroid page to everybody's satisfaction.96.26.126.134 (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Dr Diener,
I have replaced the reference in question with this one:
Lewin, Benjamin.; Krebs, Jocelyn E.; Kilpatrick, Stephen T.; Goldstein, Elliott S.; Lewin, Benjamin. Genes IX. (2011). Lewin's genes. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett. p. 23. ISBN 9780763766320.
As you probably know, this is a highly regarded textbook.
I cannot find a reliable source for the number of atoms, so I have deleted this statement.
I don't understand why you are having difficulties posting your comments. In any case, please remember to login with your username and password otherwise you posts will be anonymous and you will reveal you IP address to others. Graham Beards ( talk) 15:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I came to this page from the note at RNA world hypothesis. The information on viroids was 5 paragraphs inserted into the lead ( WP:UNDUE), so I moved it into a separate section. I'll let you guys decide what should be done with it. :-) Sunrise ( talk) 07:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Added: I didn't realize this was from November. I'm moving this into a new section and pinging User:Graham Beards, User:Drbogdan, User:Dienerto. (Dr. Diener, if you want to get someone's attention as you intended with the note on your talk page, you can make sure they get a notification by linking their usernames like I have just done.) Thanks! Sunrise ( talk) 08:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it says "Diener's hypothesis was mostly forgotten until 2014". But on Google Scholar I found that the paper was being cited regularly after publication. -- ImproveEverything ( talk) 01:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I found the list given of the six arguments of Dr. Diener, that were summarized etc by Flores et al, a little confusing so would like to ask @ Dienerto, Graham Beards, Drbogdan, and Sunrise: if the following, a precis of the Flores text which expands those given here slightly, would be acceptable in its place:
1. the intrinsic error-prone replication of primitive RNA systems led to limitation of the size of their master sequences to avoid the extinction of “error catastrophe”.
2. viroids increase replication fidelity of RNA systems through higher thermodynamic stability. Furthermore, ribozymes can be formed by the two strands and both function as templates.
3. reiterative copying of their circular genomes would avoid loss of genetic information. This rolling-circle replication would result in multiple copies of the genetic information, a condition likely favored in primitive replicons with a high mutation rate.
4. the sequence of some viroids exhibits a structural periodicity characterized by repeat units of different length. This periodicity points to a mechanism by which larger genomes could have evolved. The recombinant nature of some viroids, which are formed by fragments present in other viroids, is consistent with this view.
5. viroids are non-protein-coding RNAs which traces their origin back to the first age of the RNA World, wherein no ribosomes existed.
6. (and most important) viroids have the catalytic activity required for the three steps of viroid replication — cleavage, ligation, and RNA polymerization (in in vitro evolution studies) — via hammerhead ribozymes.
LookingGlass ( talk) 17:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Just wondering; aren't infectious proteins, eg Prions, smaller than viroids? It seems to me that the introductory sentence is false; since I am new to editing Wikipedia, I didn't want to make an edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynexo ( talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Just rehashing a question from the previous section. Going to repost the question:
In what sense are viroids smaller than prions? If we assume 1 nucleotide in RNA is 325 Da, the smallest viroid listed on this page (246 nucleotides) would weigh roughly 80 kDa. This article [1] suggests that the human prion protein is only 36 kDa. This would suggest that prions are indeed smaller than viroids. Is there something I'm missing on this?
Marcconnell95 ( talk) 15:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I worked on this article with Theodor Otto Diener and although this affords me no editorial privileges, I have an interest in it. In my humble opinion more recent edits have not been an improvement overall and my requests for changes to be discussed here, on the Talk Page, seem to have been ignored. Of course we need to keep the article up to date with tertiary sources, which should be presented well with a consistent citation style. Recent edits in this regard have not been an improvement. Why do we need page numbers and quotations from fairly short papers? If we do, there are better ways of citing them. I am always open to arguments but edit warring achieves nothing other than animosity. Graham Beards ( talk) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
In summary, I think we need to update the citations, some of which are quite old and we should do this taking WP:CITEVAR to account and stick to the established citation style. Sadly, we no have Dr Diener's guidance on more recent developments in the field, ribozyme activity for example, but these seems reasonably straight forward. The prose needs some work to eliminate redundancies and jargon. I have made a start on all these issues. Graham Beards ( talk) 17:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
My removal of this paragraph has been objected to. I am sorry for not seeking consensus on this.
As there are no objections, I will delete the paragraph for the reasons I have given above. Graham Beards ( talk) 12:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Why was ds RNA sequencing needed?– !? Wu 2015 is provided. If you want more explanatory text then you could have added it.
What is meant by "next generation"?– !? There is
[[next generation dsRNA sequencing]]
and Wu to answer that. If the page number is needed it is {{rp|434}}
.MorozovCan you quote where Morozov says there are truly endogenous dsRNAs? I find only exogenous if we note that they use endogenous to mean transexpressed. More importantly I am suspicious of this journal and the citations are not wonderful although there is Amari & Niehl 2020. [1] However A&N cites Morozov only in passing and explicitly only for
exogenous application ofdsRNAs.
And noise is jargon which some readers might think it means noise, which it certainly does not.Some readers will mistake many things. That is not a reason to remove instead of improve. We certainly could make that
[[statistical noise|noise]]
. I did not do so because the readership for this page would understand that and I was working quickly. You understood well enough to know it certainly does notafter all. Invasive Spices ( talk) 4 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link), a review and Bester R, Cook G, Breytenbach J, Steyn C, De Bruyn R, Maree HJ (March 2021).
"Towards the validation of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) for routine plant virus diagnostics: measurement of variation linked to HTS detection of citrus viruses and viroids". Virology Journal. 18 (1): 61.
doi:
10.1186/s12985-021-01523-1.
PMC
7986492.
PMID
33752714. {{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 3 (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link). If we are going to included this, we need more than a couple of sentences sourced to a 2015 paper.
Graham Beards (
talk)
11:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
While reading through this article, I found the taxonomy section difficult to decipher, would it be a good idea to add the first species in each genera to the bullet point list to make it easier to read. Yirch ( talk) 05:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Currently - seems there's several wikilinks to the purportedly newly discovered life form "obelisk" - " Obelisk (virology)" and " Obelisk (life form)" and " Obelisk (viroid)" - perhaps some merger(s) would help? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Obelisk (life form) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)