There appears to be no strict definition given for viruses. "unable to grow or reproduce outside a host cell" is not a sufficient definition as it includes some bacteria (eg. Chlamidophyla spp) and this made me wonder what the real definition is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.139.36 ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be good to have a separated article for each group of viruses (dsDNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, ...) with a taxobox each. This is done in eukarya, bacteria, archaea, and so on, where each phylum, classis, etc, has its own article. 91.117.48.173 ( talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Positive single stranded RNA viruses are "ready to go" because they are identical to mRNA.
Negative sense single stranded RNA viruses need to be converted to positive sense single stranded RNA viruses before replication can continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.95.48 ( talk) 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In this section it states:
"An example of the first type is HIV which is a retrovirus. Retroviruses often integrate the DNA produced by reverse transcription into the host genome. This is why HIV infection can at present, only be treated and not cured."
I'm not sure I agree with this assertion, which has no citation. I think are a number of reasons why HIV seems to persist and is very rarely (if at all) cleared from hosts. These include a high substitution rate (which means rapid co-evolution with host T-cells immune escape), high copy number in active tissues, and viral archiving in other tissues that allows sporadic bursts of replication (and does not, as far as I know, rely on proviral integration). These traits are all features of other viruses causing chronic infection but which are not retroviruses, such as hepatitis C virus.
On the other hand, there is no mention of vertical germline transmission arising from proviral integration of retroviruses into gametes - although a distinction should be made between this mode of transmission (see also endogenous retroviruses) and vertical maternal transmission through the colostrum (and i think, placenta?), which is certainly a feature of HIV infection at least. Comrade jo ( talk) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe there ought to be a reference to mimivirus in this section - although total size is smaller than filovirus, I think the capsid itself has a greater diameter. Similarly, it has the largest genome. Comrade jo ( talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080822-giant-virus.html I think we should include this in the article. The questions it brings up alone should be enough. Ratattuta ( talk) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
While Life cycle is commonly used with viruses, viruses are not alive! The 5 characteristices of life are: 1. Organization 2, Energy use and matabolism! 3, Maintenance of internal constancy 4. reproduction, growth and development 5. Irritability and adaptation ( responce to environment)
a supermarket is highly organized, but it is obviously not alive! Orginisms have all five characteristics! Viruses do not maintain homeostasis,which is impossible without any matabilism! Viruses do not use energy to maintain thier so called life cycle! Viruses do not have reproduction ouside of thier hosts! They neither grow n-- Wacko Peppermint man ( talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)or develope outside thier hosts! Three of the five cases are proof that viruses are not alive! From: Life 5ED; Ricki Lewis, Douglas Gaffin, Marielle Hoefgnagels, Bruce Parker; ISBN = 0-07-243718-9
Ok this is what happens when an article is locked, typos become prevalent. In the THIRD paragraph fecal is spelled faecal. Now I, of course, could have remedied this immediately if the articles weren't locked indiscriminately. Kniesten ( talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There should be a note that says "This article is about the biological agent. For the Argentine band see Virus (Argentine band)" -- Jim88Argentina ( talk) 01:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No, there are MANY uses for the word virus, and so the disambiguation page works. 64.230.103.83 ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add a comment whether it is Viri(i) or Viruses in the multiple form - perhaps in the start of the article 80.164.6.5 ( talk) 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I infer from the article that viruses are not alive. They are smaller than the smallest living micro–organism (bacteria) and they replicate by attaching themselves to a living cell. They are therefore different from living organisms and living cells. That is, they are not alive. Lestrade ( talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Swept under the rug again. Being alive just isn't that important. Lestrade ( talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I have a can of Lysol disinfectant in front of me. On the front of the can are the words: "Kills Flu Virus" and "Kills Viruses." On the rear of the can, the claim is made that Lysol kills the following viruses: Influenza A, Influenza B, Rhinovirus Type 39 (the leading cause of the common cold), Respiratory Syncytial, Rotavirus Wa, Hepatitis A, Poliovirus Type 1, Herpes Simplex Types 1 & 2, and Feline calicivirus. In this way, a major product has been placed on the market and the whole corporation, Reckitt Benckiser, that is responsible for its distribution, bases itself on the claim that it kills viruses. The Wikipedia article Viricide, however, claims that Since "life" in viruses is debatable to begin with, the term [viricide] generally means an antiseptic which reliably deactivates or destroys a virus. The semantic issue is whether we use the word "kill" to mean "deprive of life," as is usual, or to mean "render inactive" or "prevent reproduction." According to the Wikipedia article Antiviral drug, Viruses consist of a genome and sometimes a few enzymes stored in a capsule made of protein (called a capsid), and sometimes covered with a lipid layer (sometimes called an 'envelope'). A virus, then, is a nucleic acid that is not really a living organism, but merely a part of one. The choice of whether to say that it can be killed or can be deactivated is semantic and rests on the way that we use words. I could say that I kill my lamp or my home alarm or my television when I turn it off. It's only a matter of semantics. There is no strict rule of usage for these words in the case of viruses and therefore they are ambiguous, confusing, and convey false information. It would be beneficial if the Wikipedia article on Virus helped to dispel this misinformation. Lestrade ( talk) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
From 'O'-Level Biology classes and popular science articles of my youth (somewhat more than 3 decades ago) I recall learning that "virus" was shortened from "filterable virus", a term that does not currently appear in the History section of this article, whose most relevant passage currently reads;
One of those popular articles was "Through the Micro-Glass" by Isaac Asimov, originally published in the February 1973 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (pp137-47) and reprinted in his essay collection The Tragedy of The Moon (1st Ed. Doubleday (New York) 1973, 1st UK Ed. Abelard-Schuman (London) 1974, 1st UK Pbk Ed. Coronet (London) 1975).
(NB: though primarily a fiction magazine, F&SF carried a regular science column, long written by Asimov who was an Associate Professor of Biochemistry, co-wrote a standard University textbook on that subject, and who therefore might be considered authoritative in this area.)
I still have the original magazine and the Coronet paperback to hand: a passage (F&SF Feb 1973 p136, Coronet pbk 1975 pp122-3 with trivial hyphenation variations) reads;
1. Should/could the term "filterable virus" be added to the article text using this as reference?
2. Note that Asimov's date of 1898 is echoed in the Wiki article on Martinus Beijerinck, in contradiction to the 1899 in this article. Could someone check the cited references - Dimmock, N.J; Easton, Andrew J; Leppard, Keith (2007) Introduction to Modern Virology sixth edition, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 1405136456 and Lerner, K.L.; B.M. Lerner (2002). Martinus Willem Beijerinck from World of Microbiology and Immunology Florence, KY: Thomas Gage Publishing. ISBN 0787665401 - regarding this date? 87.81.230.195 ( talk) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
<ref name="pmid14595901">{{cite journal | author = Pennazio S | title = The contribution of plant biology to the concept of virus (1886-1917) | journal = Riv. Biol. | volume = 96 | issue = 2 | pages = 241–60 | year = 2003 | pmid = 14595901 | doi = | url = http://www.tilgher.it/manager/googlepdf.aspx?file=riv_t4a8f2o671.pdf | issn = | accessdate = 2009-03-25}}</ref>
Just paste it in and I'll run DOI Bot later to fill in the the D.O.I. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The image could be very useful but I suggest not including it until concerns that I expressed on its Talk page, on the Commons, have been addressed. I have pasted these comments below:
Hi, nice diagram but I have a few comments:
Also, I find the absence of genitalia too prudish for a modern encyclopaedia. Graham Colm Talk 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible for something to be x-times less than something else, otherwise it would be non-existent and move into some strange negative territory. I'm going to assume that you mean viri are 1/100th the size of bacteria - which would make sense - which is what I'm going to change it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.34.109 ( talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(my first discussion post!) I believe that the caption under the image for "Enveloped" is wrong. It now says: ...Electron micrograph of negatively-stained herpes zoster virus." BUT when you click the image, the text says that it's a smallpox virus. The page is protected so I couldn't make the change. If I'm correct, could someone please correct the caption? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclapp ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the caption and image is right . The image page says "chickenpox", but the correct name for the virus is "Varicella zoster virus". Graham Colm Talk 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Isnt singular of virus is viron? When to use viron, virus and viruses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.0.48 ( talk) 08:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The question as to whether a virus has been killed or has been merely prevented from reproducing itself has been dismissed as being only a dispute about semantics. Would it be dismissed if it was about humans instead of viruses? Is there no significant difference between killing a man and preventing a man from reproducing by forcing him to use a condom? If so, then there is a significant, non–semantical difference between killing a virus and preventing it from reproducing itself. Lestrade ( talk) 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Is this a true statement? Are there no exceptions? This [2] ((first sentence under Background heading) made it sound like perhaps some cells are only affected by "virus-like selfish genetic elements" - which, for an intro might be close enough. The source cited by the article I linked for that statement isn't available online so I wasn't able to look at the details. It also hedges it's statement with "every cellular organism studied" I'm not looking to make the lede cumbersome, I just wonder if this absolute statement is justified. Perhaps "It is thought that viruses infect all cellular life." or "All known cellular life is affected by viruses or virus-like elements" or "So far no cellular organism has been discovered to be immune to the effects of viruses" or some other variant? Any thoughts here? Anyone have a better knowledge of the exceptional cases that are only affected by "virus-like elements"? Mishlai ( talk) 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"There are three main theories of the origins of viruses". I think the correct word here and in the following three paragraphs is "hypothesis". If there were three theories it would mean all three have already been demonstrated, which is not the case. I can't correct this since the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.5.230 ( talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see West Nile Virus added to this article, along with its classification and long term effects. memorah 15 May 2009 Memorah ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article does not mention the debate as to whether or not viruses count as 'living things' rather than inanimate material. 72.47.38.205 ( talk) 03:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Main (summary) Section, Para2 Sent2 (P2S2): the link to "helical" incorrectly points to "tobacco mosaic virus". It should point to " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical".
Is it possible for someone to add the common tactics of a bateriophage into a list that can be made into an image? The following points:
I once distinctly remember that such a simple way the bacteriophage manages to infect a cell and this is it.
I think in addition to this we maybe could add 4 points the bacteriophage needs in order to complete viral infection. These are:
that the bacteriophage takes from the host cell. Bearing this in mind the article woould be easier to understand. I think these should be incorporated into two images highlighting the points made. KeeperOfTheKeys ( talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reparsed the code in this article under WP:ACCESS and WP:LAYOUT. Added Sister projects, cleaned up images around the section "Structure", downsized certain images for reader on small screens, corrected refs, removed unnecessary spaces, added certain spaces for code readability. Older version can be found here [3]. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked the layout for the sections "Structure" and "Genome". Old version [4]. New [5]. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Smaller images would improve the load time of the article as a whole; and likewise allows those reader to load the images they are interested in. Whether this justifies the smaller or larger images—I would say neither. It's a compromise from the start. Smaller screen sizes is mainly a concern if the image is over 180px wide, and a serious concern if its over 300px. Screen size isn't what I'm using to justify the change and nor would I apply it to say that it justifies larger images, rather I would say it justifies neither. This is what I know, the preceding paragraph is what I'm trying to accomplish. As for making PDFs out of articles, it's still a beta, they haven't adequately fixed or applied inline styles to allow the images using templates (such as {{ Double image stack}}) to display correctly.
The primary issue is that the article is trying to cram too many images in too small of a space. There aren't that many articles that try to do that; of those and those who set precedent, this is what I can say. Rather than describing them in a verticle list, articles such as Mitosis and Cyclooxygenase (complete list [6]) stack them horizontally in a gallery. I've switched "Structure" to use {{ Gallery}}, it's more flexible, and from what I've read in the discussion [7], the Molecular and cellular Biology Wikiproject seems to be picking up on it. Is this better? I'm sorry I had to put you through all this. Thanks for catching the errors in the prose, my mind was on other matters. As for the other image, I liked the comparison among several viruses, but the image you reverted to is fine by me. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
On the virus page AIDS is listed as an epidemic. On the AIDS page AIDS is listed as a pandemic.
"These immune responses can also be produced by vaccines that give lifelong immunity to a viral infection." This sentence may be misleading people in believing that vaccines always give lifelong immunity. 92.149.7.151 ( talk) 22:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that the article gained its FA status about a year ago. I have not traced the edits since then, but the article seems to have been modified quite a bit over the last year, and I guess that the article has been degraded somewhat. I have done a partial clean up mainly of the introduction, which to me seemed to be in an abysmal state for an FA, although it seemed acceptable at the time the FA was awarded - see links in "Article milestones" above. I suspect that quite a lot of the article needs checking. I question bringing articles to feature on the main page about one year after attaining FA. Snowman ( talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In this , the text "many antiviral drugs act by inhibiting or modifying unique stages of viruses development that are not part of the hosts own metabolism" (which was introduced a step earlier here) was changed from "modifying" to "utilizing". But making use of a stage of virus development doesn't explain how this could be detrimental to the virus. Doesn't the antiviral, instead, abuse the virus's own machinery/processes (I'm using the word for contrast, not suggesting it be placed in the text). Colin° Talk 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a few problems with the sentence "Clinically useful antiviral drugs can only target a few specific steps in the synthesis of viral structures, as viruses utilize vital metabolism within the host's cells.", which was introduced here. Arguably (to the reader anyway), an antiviral "drug" that is not "clinically useful" is merely a "chemical". We can drop "clinically useful". There's some comical alteration in "specific steps in the synthesis of viral structures", followed by "viruses utilize vital". I think "synthesis of viral structures" is too erudite. I still find this attempt to explain why antiviral drug development is hard to be to difficult to follow. The earlier text tried to explain (I think) that the drugs stopped reproduction rather than killing individual viruses. The current text seems to be explaining that since the viruses use our machinery, we can't break that machinery without killing ourselves. The addition of the sentence "This contrasts to the use of antibiotic drugs acting on infections caused by bacteria, which have a variety of metabolic pathways to act on." appears unsourced and not repeated in the body text. Speaking as an ignorant lay person, surely bacteria have their own problem in that they are similar to our own cells so must share a lot of machinery/processes with us. If that is true, does this argument ("This contrasts to") hold? Can you try come up with lay-friendlier terms than "metabolism" and "metabolic pathways" for the lead. Sometimes you can get away with "metabolism" but I think "utilize vital metabolism" just doesn't work for me. Colin° Talk 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the sentence "Not all viruses cause disease, as many viruses reproduce without causing any obvious harm to the infected organism." removed? Colin° Talk 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This sentence, "Some viruses including HIV and several causing viral hepatitis can be spread by an influx of infected blood and can cause life-long or chronic infections, where viruses continue to replicate in the body and can be in present in blood having foiled the hosts' defence mechanisms." is too long and covers too many points. Colin° Talk 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And "influx of infected blood" is a bit abstract. Colin° Talk 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The text now says (twice), "Generally viruses are much smaller than bacteria." Previously it said "Viruses are about 1/100th the size of bacteria". This was changed with the comment "viruses and bacteria vary in size - the largest virus is about the size of the smallest bacteria, the micoplasma". This might be true, I don't know, but if it is then I suspect neither text is satisfactory. Domestic cats are generally smaller than dogs but never 100 times smaller. Size is an important topic and the size relative to bacteria is also important given that fine filtration is one method used to determine whether a pathogen is a virus or a bacteria. Can we find a solution? Colin° Talk 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks, there's a glaring grammatical issue in the very first sentence; the words '...a infectious agent' should read 'an infectious agent'. Someone needs to fix this ASAP, as the article currently appears on the main page of Wikipedia. 206.223.190.7 ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that this might be a caching issue? The main page teaser shows 'a macroscopic infectious agent'; however, if one visits the full article one sees 'a infectious agent'. Is this a revision that's merely taking time to propagate? 206.223.190.7 ( talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the lead that says "In evolution, viruses are an important means of horizontal gene transfer, which increases genetic diversity." however I can't see anything in the body of the article about this. First of all, the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the text and there shouldn't be anything in it that isn't at least mentioned later. Secondly, the discovery of this this mechanism for gene transfer revolutionised the thinking about genetics so I think more needs to be said about it. Richerman ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The introduction lists various virus targets:
I recall reading an article in Scientific American recently where it was discovered that viruses even infect other viruses, called a "satellite". I found Wikipedia had an article on Virophages and added it to the list, with the link.
Someone else took exception to that, and reverted. Rather than continue an edit war, I'm presenting it here. Perhaps the redactor could propose better grammar, rather than just undoing it?
Since this is a new extremum of the range, I think it's important to not exclude it in the "to" of the stated range.
— Długosz ( talk) 21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed mentioned several times in the body, with links and direct references. The article I recall indicated that the satellite virus became packaged up with the "infected" one, and relied on the host's infection mechanisms which it hijacked for its own purposes. But, the current understanding of all that is on it's own page. The intro just needs to say the interesting things to be found in the body, and necessarily less precise. I'll change it, using the wording you suggested. User:Długosz
I came here looking for information about how long a virus may stay viable on a surface (ie a door handle). I don't see that. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Viruses cannot be viable (capable of living) because they are not alive. Lestrade ( talk) 15:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Should there be a direct link to the computer virus on the top of this page, as it's pretty common, many people typing in "virus" will be looking for the computer virus. 207.69.137.6 ( talk) 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Great new section, Graham. You might be interested in PMID 16163346 and PMID 17853907. I don't have access, but the abstract makes them look useful for this section. Colin° Talk 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In the definition of virus at the top of the article it is stated that a virus is a type of "infectious agent". If you look up infectious agent (synonym with "pathogen"), these are defined as a type of "biological agent" that cause disease. The page for biological agent define these as "viruses, bacteria..." etc. This might be more a problem with the "biological agent" page, I suppose, but is there a way to avoid this?
Also, the initial definition is too broad, as it would also apply to viroids, satellite viruses and prions. The definition is narrowed down later in the article to include only particles that have both genetic material AND a protein capsid. Maybe the definition should be "A particle consisting of genetic material and a proteinaceous coat that can only replicate inside a host cell" or something like that.
It is apparent that viruses are commonly seen as "bad"... That is not necessarily true:
"...It's is supposed by many evolutionary anthropologists that viruses, specifically retrovirus, which employ the enzyme RNA dependent DNA polymerase (reverse transcriptase), have been responsible for many of the translocations found in mammilian evolution. furthermore, several virus species are responsible for healthy bacterial growth, which, in turn, benefit the human host."
"It is possible that telomerase, the enzyme involved in extending the lifetime of cells and maintaining stem cells, evolved from viral enzymes since it's closest relatives are retroviral reverse transcriptase enzymes."
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=339992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitoergosumleo ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 March 2010
The "Life properties" section states that the question whether viruses are alive has not yet been answered. After 102 years of expensive research, it would be astounding if scientists could not answer this question. By now, it should be common knowledge as to whether viruses are organic or mechanistic. Physicians prescribe antibiotics for viral illnesses. Disinfectants advertise their ability to kill viruses. Wikipedia posters ask about the viability of viruses. This is all done on the assumption that viruses are alive and can be killed. Is this true or false? An encyclopedia like Wikipedia should be able to answer such a simple question with authority. Lestrade ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
The problem is a problem of definition. If you call alive that which has by itself no ability to reproduce or even have a metabolic activity, then a virus is not. If you call alive any genome that can reproduce itself by its own means or by exploiting another genome's designed "replicator", then viruses are. An interesting concept in that respect is that of the viral factory: a virion would not be a viruses' main form, rather, it would be the cell that has been conquered by the virus and turned into a viral cell/factory. In that respect, viruses can be considered as cellular life forms and as alive, it's just that people mistake their reproductive structures for their main form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.192.140 ( talk) 08:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I was about to correct what looked like a typo, "...is a characteristic of the all herpes viruses including the Epstein-Barr virus...", by removing the first "the". It would then read, "...is a characteristic of all herpes viruses including the Epstein-Barr virus...". But I don't know that latency is characteristic of /all/ herpes viruses, so I thought I'd ask first. Smoggyrob | Talk 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I challenge the notion that the sputnik virus infects other viruses. The sputnik virus phage co-infects other organisms with another virus. If you had a pure culture of mamavirus and added sputnik virus too it you wouldn't have anything like an infection going on until you exposed them to another organism. If we compare that relationship to another set of organisms like DED and Elm Bark Beetles. DED needs the action of the beetles to successfully attack the host, and by destroying the common host ( Elm) DED damages the fitness of the EBB, however it would be a mistake to claim that DED is infecting EBB's. -- 216.67.4.221 ( talk) 23:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand this table and it needs to be verified by a reliable source. The use of "similar" is not helpful and where do the poxviruses fit in? I think most readers will be very confused by this. Graham Colm ( talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Nucleocapsid structure | dsDNA | ssDNA | dsRNA | RNA+ | ssRNA- |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Naked icosahedron or similar | all | all | all | all | none |
with an envelope | Herpes virus family, Hepadna virus family | none | none | Corona-, retro-, toga-, flavivirus families | |
helical with envelope | all¹ |
¹ The arenavirus family has both a negative sense RNA and an ambisense one.
Why can't the article tell us if viruses are alive (organic) or dead (mechanical)? Science has been studying viruses for many years. Is this question beyond human knowledge? Many disinfectants openly advertise their ability to kill viruses. Lestrade ( talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
An encyclopedia article that can't state whether viruses are alive or not. "It all depends on what you mean by": dead, alive, kill, etc. "Most virologists do not care." This is "sweeping it under the rug" par excellence. This issue takes a practical turn when your doctor prescribes an antibiotic for a viral infection simply because it seems to alleviate the symptoms. Shouldn't this be common knowledge? It has a financial implication when the manufacturer of a disinfectant claims to the public that his product kills viruses. People depend on Wikipedia to give them correct information. Unlike virologists, many people might care to know the answer. Lestrade ( talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
I've removed a sentence and reference that was added in March 2009 after noticing that this IP and others have a long term history of spamming this authors work. This was one of the better edits, but I don't think that an essay by a philospher such as this is a reliable source for information like this regardless. See User_talk:83.215.123.233 and (at present) this ANI thread for more details. Smartse ( talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain to me what the term "one hundred times smaller" means... It is both scientifically and grammatically impossible. To use such a term is sloppy, amateurish and unprofessional and for a resource like Wikipedia which is clamouring for respectability, to have such things only adds fodder to claims that it is an unreliable resource. I will be changing the line to "one one-hundredth" every time it is reverted until such time that it is left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.130.215 ( talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"The effects of marine viruses are far-reaching; by increasing the amount of respiration in the oceans, viruses are indirectly responsible for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by approximately 3 gigatonnes of carbon per year."
This sentence does not make sense, since respiration produces carbon dioxide. The cited article does not say what this sentence does. Graham853 ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
In one place the article says "5,000 viruses have been described in detail", but another part talks of "2,000 recognised species of animal, plant, and bacterial viruses". 86.186.34.238 ( talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
The preamble reads 'Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and are the most abundant type of biological entity." What is that supposed to mean? Most widely spread? Certainly not number of species, there are many more Insect species for example. Can it mean greatest number of individuals? Nope, Bacteria are more 'abundant' if that is the measured criteria. We need to clarify this claim or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.142.136 ( talk) 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) #
So, it's saying that molecular techniques have been most useful, yet these techniques rely on ancient DNA or RNA that actually does not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.2.205 ( talk) 02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I remember seeing an article in New Scientist which said that viruses were essential to the reproduction of placental mammals - one set of viruses in the embryo made the placental a syncitium, so it passed either way oxygen, nutrients and wastes, but blocked antibodies etc. in either direction; another set in the embryo weakened the mother's immune system to inhibit it from attacking the embryo. If this is still regarded as a valid hypothesis, I think it should be added, possible in "Role in evolution". -- Philcha ( talk) 22:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section Bacteria we find this on the density of bacteriophages in seawater: "...reaching levels of 250,000,000 bacteriophages per millilitre of seawater.[197]" . Then later, in Role in Aquatic Ecosystems: "...a teaspoon of seawater contains about one million of them.[205]" . Given that one teaspoon is about five ml, that works out to about 200,000 phage per ml, which is over a thousand times less than the former claim. I think the difference should be addressed, for example "the average is X and the maximum is Y", or "there are various estimates ranging from X to Y". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.138.97 ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be no strict definition given for viruses. "unable to grow or reproduce outside a host cell" is not a sufficient definition as it includes some bacteria (eg. Chlamidophyla spp) and this made me wonder what the real definition is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.139.36 ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be good to have a separated article for each group of viruses (dsDNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, ...) with a taxobox each. This is done in eukarya, bacteria, archaea, and so on, where each phylum, classis, etc, has its own article. 91.117.48.173 ( talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Positive single stranded RNA viruses are "ready to go" because they are identical to mRNA.
Negative sense single stranded RNA viruses need to be converted to positive sense single stranded RNA viruses before replication can continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.95.48 ( talk) 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In this section it states:
"An example of the first type is HIV which is a retrovirus. Retroviruses often integrate the DNA produced by reverse transcription into the host genome. This is why HIV infection can at present, only be treated and not cured."
I'm not sure I agree with this assertion, which has no citation. I think are a number of reasons why HIV seems to persist and is very rarely (if at all) cleared from hosts. These include a high substitution rate (which means rapid co-evolution with host T-cells immune escape), high copy number in active tissues, and viral archiving in other tissues that allows sporadic bursts of replication (and does not, as far as I know, rely on proviral integration). These traits are all features of other viruses causing chronic infection but which are not retroviruses, such as hepatitis C virus.
On the other hand, there is no mention of vertical germline transmission arising from proviral integration of retroviruses into gametes - although a distinction should be made between this mode of transmission (see also endogenous retroviruses) and vertical maternal transmission through the colostrum (and i think, placenta?), which is certainly a feature of HIV infection at least. Comrade jo ( talk) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe there ought to be a reference to mimivirus in this section - although total size is smaller than filovirus, I think the capsid itself has a greater diameter. Similarly, it has the largest genome. Comrade jo ( talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080822-giant-virus.html I think we should include this in the article. The questions it brings up alone should be enough. Ratattuta ( talk) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
While Life cycle is commonly used with viruses, viruses are not alive! The 5 characteristices of life are: 1. Organization 2, Energy use and matabolism! 3, Maintenance of internal constancy 4. reproduction, growth and development 5. Irritability and adaptation ( responce to environment)
a supermarket is highly organized, but it is obviously not alive! Orginisms have all five characteristics! Viruses do not maintain homeostasis,which is impossible without any matabilism! Viruses do not use energy to maintain thier so called life cycle! Viruses do not have reproduction ouside of thier hosts! They neither grow n-- Wacko Peppermint man ( talk) 23:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)or develope outside thier hosts! Three of the five cases are proof that viruses are not alive! From: Life 5ED; Ricki Lewis, Douglas Gaffin, Marielle Hoefgnagels, Bruce Parker; ISBN = 0-07-243718-9
Ok this is what happens when an article is locked, typos become prevalent. In the THIRD paragraph fecal is spelled faecal. Now I, of course, could have remedied this immediately if the articles weren't locked indiscriminately. Kniesten ( talk) 20:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There should be a note that says "This article is about the biological agent. For the Argentine band see Virus (Argentine band)" -- Jim88Argentina ( talk) 01:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No, there are MANY uses for the word virus, and so the disambiguation page works. 64.230.103.83 ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add a comment whether it is Viri(i) or Viruses in the multiple form - perhaps in the start of the article 80.164.6.5 ( talk) 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I infer from the article that viruses are not alive. They are smaller than the smallest living micro–organism (bacteria) and they replicate by attaching themselves to a living cell. They are therefore different from living organisms and living cells. That is, they are not alive. Lestrade ( talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Swept under the rug again. Being alive just isn't that important. Lestrade ( talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I have a can of Lysol disinfectant in front of me. On the front of the can are the words: "Kills Flu Virus" and "Kills Viruses." On the rear of the can, the claim is made that Lysol kills the following viruses: Influenza A, Influenza B, Rhinovirus Type 39 (the leading cause of the common cold), Respiratory Syncytial, Rotavirus Wa, Hepatitis A, Poliovirus Type 1, Herpes Simplex Types 1 & 2, and Feline calicivirus. In this way, a major product has been placed on the market and the whole corporation, Reckitt Benckiser, that is responsible for its distribution, bases itself on the claim that it kills viruses. The Wikipedia article Viricide, however, claims that Since "life" in viruses is debatable to begin with, the term [viricide] generally means an antiseptic which reliably deactivates or destroys a virus. The semantic issue is whether we use the word "kill" to mean "deprive of life," as is usual, or to mean "render inactive" or "prevent reproduction." According to the Wikipedia article Antiviral drug, Viruses consist of a genome and sometimes a few enzymes stored in a capsule made of protein (called a capsid), and sometimes covered with a lipid layer (sometimes called an 'envelope'). A virus, then, is a nucleic acid that is not really a living organism, but merely a part of one. The choice of whether to say that it can be killed or can be deactivated is semantic and rests on the way that we use words. I could say that I kill my lamp or my home alarm or my television when I turn it off. It's only a matter of semantics. There is no strict rule of usage for these words in the case of viruses and therefore they are ambiguous, confusing, and convey false information. It would be beneficial if the Wikipedia article on Virus helped to dispel this misinformation. Lestrade ( talk) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
From 'O'-Level Biology classes and popular science articles of my youth (somewhat more than 3 decades ago) I recall learning that "virus" was shortened from "filterable virus", a term that does not currently appear in the History section of this article, whose most relevant passage currently reads;
One of those popular articles was "Through the Micro-Glass" by Isaac Asimov, originally published in the February 1973 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (pp137-47) and reprinted in his essay collection The Tragedy of The Moon (1st Ed. Doubleday (New York) 1973, 1st UK Ed. Abelard-Schuman (London) 1974, 1st UK Pbk Ed. Coronet (London) 1975).
(NB: though primarily a fiction magazine, F&SF carried a regular science column, long written by Asimov who was an Associate Professor of Biochemistry, co-wrote a standard University textbook on that subject, and who therefore might be considered authoritative in this area.)
I still have the original magazine and the Coronet paperback to hand: a passage (F&SF Feb 1973 p136, Coronet pbk 1975 pp122-3 with trivial hyphenation variations) reads;
1. Should/could the term "filterable virus" be added to the article text using this as reference?
2. Note that Asimov's date of 1898 is echoed in the Wiki article on Martinus Beijerinck, in contradiction to the 1899 in this article. Could someone check the cited references - Dimmock, N.J; Easton, Andrew J; Leppard, Keith (2007) Introduction to Modern Virology sixth edition, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 1405136456 and Lerner, K.L.; B.M. Lerner (2002). Martinus Willem Beijerinck from World of Microbiology and Immunology Florence, KY: Thomas Gage Publishing. ISBN 0787665401 - regarding this date? 87.81.230.195 ( talk) 01:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
<ref name="pmid14595901">{{cite journal | author = Pennazio S | title = The contribution of plant biology to the concept of virus (1886-1917) | journal = Riv. Biol. | volume = 96 | issue = 2 | pages = 241–60 | year = 2003 | pmid = 14595901 | doi = | url = http://www.tilgher.it/manager/googlepdf.aspx?file=riv_t4a8f2o671.pdf | issn = | accessdate = 2009-03-25}}</ref>
Just paste it in and I'll run DOI Bot later to fill in the the D.O.I. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The image could be very useful but I suggest not including it until concerns that I expressed on its Talk page, on the Commons, have been addressed. I have pasted these comments below:
Hi, nice diagram but I have a few comments:
Also, I find the absence of genitalia too prudish for a modern encyclopaedia. Graham Colm Talk 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible for something to be x-times less than something else, otherwise it would be non-existent and move into some strange negative territory. I'm going to assume that you mean viri are 1/100th the size of bacteria - which would make sense - which is what I'm going to change it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.34.109 ( talk) 23:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(my first discussion post!) I believe that the caption under the image for "Enveloped" is wrong. It now says: ...Electron micrograph of negatively-stained herpes zoster virus." BUT when you click the image, the text says that it's a smallpox virus. The page is protected so I couldn't make the change. If I'm correct, could someone please correct the caption? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclapp ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the caption and image is right . The image page says "chickenpox", but the correct name for the virus is "Varicella zoster virus". Graham Colm Talk 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Isnt singular of virus is viron? When to use viron, virus and viruses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.0.48 ( talk) 08:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The question as to whether a virus has been killed or has been merely prevented from reproducing itself has been dismissed as being only a dispute about semantics. Would it be dismissed if it was about humans instead of viruses? Is there no significant difference between killing a man and preventing a man from reproducing by forcing him to use a condom? If so, then there is a significant, non–semantical difference between killing a virus and preventing it from reproducing itself. Lestrade ( talk) 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Is this a true statement? Are there no exceptions? This [2] ((first sentence under Background heading) made it sound like perhaps some cells are only affected by "virus-like selfish genetic elements" - which, for an intro might be close enough. The source cited by the article I linked for that statement isn't available online so I wasn't able to look at the details. It also hedges it's statement with "every cellular organism studied" I'm not looking to make the lede cumbersome, I just wonder if this absolute statement is justified. Perhaps "It is thought that viruses infect all cellular life." or "All known cellular life is affected by viruses or virus-like elements" or "So far no cellular organism has been discovered to be immune to the effects of viruses" or some other variant? Any thoughts here? Anyone have a better knowledge of the exceptional cases that are only affected by "virus-like elements"? Mishlai ( talk) 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"There are three main theories of the origins of viruses". I think the correct word here and in the following three paragraphs is "hypothesis". If there were three theories it would mean all three have already been demonstrated, which is not the case. I can't correct this since the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.5.230 ( talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see West Nile Virus added to this article, along with its classification and long term effects. memorah 15 May 2009 Memorah ( talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article does not mention the debate as to whether or not viruses count as 'living things' rather than inanimate material. 72.47.38.205 ( talk) 03:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Main (summary) Section, Para2 Sent2 (P2S2): the link to "helical" incorrectly points to "tobacco mosaic virus". It should point to " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical".
Is it possible for someone to add the common tactics of a bateriophage into a list that can be made into an image? The following points:
I once distinctly remember that such a simple way the bacteriophage manages to infect a cell and this is it.
I think in addition to this we maybe could add 4 points the bacteriophage needs in order to complete viral infection. These are:
that the bacteriophage takes from the host cell. Bearing this in mind the article woould be easier to understand. I think these should be incorporated into two images highlighting the points made. KeeperOfTheKeys ( talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reparsed the code in this article under WP:ACCESS and WP:LAYOUT. Added Sister projects, cleaned up images around the section "Structure", downsized certain images for reader on small screens, corrected refs, removed unnecessary spaces, added certain spaces for code readability. Older version can be found here [3]. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked the layout for the sections "Structure" and "Genome". Old version [4]. New [5]. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Smaller images would improve the load time of the article as a whole; and likewise allows those reader to load the images they are interested in. Whether this justifies the smaller or larger images—I would say neither. It's a compromise from the start. Smaller screen sizes is mainly a concern if the image is over 180px wide, and a serious concern if its over 300px. Screen size isn't what I'm using to justify the change and nor would I apply it to say that it justifies larger images, rather I would say it justifies neither. This is what I know, the preceding paragraph is what I'm trying to accomplish. As for making PDFs out of articles, it's still a beta, they haven't adequately fixed or applied inline styles to allow the images using templates (such as {{ Double image stack}}) to display correctly.
The primary issue is that the article is trying to cram too many images in too small of a space. There aren't that many articles that try to do that; of those and those who set precedent, this is what I can say. Rather than describing them in a verticle list, articles such as Mitosis and Cyclooxygenase (complete list [6]) stack them horizontally in a gallery. I've switched "Structure" to use {{ Gallery}}, it's more flexible, and from what I've read in the discussion [7], the Molecular and cellular Biology Wikiproject seems to be picking up on it. Is this better? I'm sorry I had to put you through all this. Thanks for catching the errors in the prose, my mind was on other matters. As for the other image, I liked the comparison among several viruses, but the image you reverted to is fine by me. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
On the virus page AIDS is listed as an epidemic. On the AIDS page AIDS is listed as a pandemic.
"These immune responses can also be produced by vaccines that give lifelong immunity to a viral infection." This sentence may be misleading people in believing that vaccines always give lifelong immunity. 92.149.7.151 ( talk) 22:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that the article gained its FA status about a year ago. I have not traced the edits since then, but the article seems to have been modified quite a bit over the last year, and I guess that the article has been degraded somewhat. I have done a partial clean up mainly of the introduction, which to me seemed to be in an abysmal state for an FA, although it seemed acceptable at the time the FA was awarded - see links in "Article milestones" above. I suspect that quite a lot of the article needs checking. I question bringing articles to feature on the main page about one year after attaining FA. Snowman ( talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
In this , the text "many antiviral drugs act by inhibiting or modifying unique stages of viruses development that are not part of the hosts own metabolism" (which was introduced a step earlier here) was changed from "modifying" to "utilizing". But making use of a stage of virus development doesn't explain how this could be detrimental to the virus. Doesn't the antiviral, instead, abuse the virus's own machinery/processes (I'm using the word for contrast, not suggesting it be placed in the text). Colin° Talk 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a few problems with the sentence "Clinically useful antiviral drugs can only target a few specific steps in the synthesis of viral structures, as viruses utilize vital metabolism within the host's cells.", which was introduced here. Arguably (to the reader anyway), an antiviral "drug" that is not "clinically useful" is merely a "chemical". We can drop "clinically useful". There's some comical alteration in "specific steps in the synthesis of viral structures", followed by "viruses utilize vital". I think "synthesis of viral structures" is too erudite. I still find this attempt to explain why antiviral drug development is hard to be to difficult to follow. The earlier text tried to explain (I think) that the drugs stopped reproduction rather than killing individual viruses. The current text seems to be explaining that since the viruses use our machinery, we can't break that machinery without killing ourselves. The addition of the sentence "This contrasts to the use of antibiotic drugs acting on infections caused by bacteria, which have a variety of metabolic pathways to act on." appears unsourced and not repeated in the body text. Speaking as an ignorant lay person, surely bacteria have their own problem in that they are similar to our own cells so must share a lot of machinery/processes with us. If that is true, does this argument ("This contrasts to") hold? Can you try come up with lay-friendlier terms than "metabolism" and "metabolic pathways" for the lead. Sometimes you can get away with "metabolism" but I think "utilize vital metabolism" just doesn't work for me. Colin° Talk 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the sentence "Not all viruses cause disease, as many viruses reproduce without causing any obvious harm to the infected organism." removed? Colin° Talk 19:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This sentence, "Some viruses including HIV and several causing viral hepatitis can be spread by an influx of infected blood and can cause life-long or chronic infections, where viruses continue to replicate in the body and can be in present in blood having foiled the hosts' defence mechanisms." is too long and covers too many points. Colin° Talk 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And "influx of infected blood" is a bit abstract. Colin° Talk 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The text now says (twice), "Generally viruses are much smaller than bacteria." Previously it said "Viruses are about 1/100th the size of bacteria". This was changed with the comment "viruses and bacteria vary in size - the largest virus is about the size of the smallest bacteria, the micoplasma". This might be true, I don't know, but if it is then I suspect neither text is satisfactory. Domestic cats are generally smaller than dogs but never 100 times smaller. Size is an important topic and the size relative to bacteria is also important given that fine filtration is one method used to determine whether a pathogen is a virus or a bacteria. Can we find a solution? Colin° Talk 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey folks, there's a glaring grammatical issue in the very first sentence; the words '...a infectious agent' should read 'an infectious agent'. Someone needs to fix this ASAP, as the article currently appears on the main page of Wikipedia. 206.223.190.7 ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that this might be a caching issue? The main page teaser shows 'a macroscopic infectious agent'; however, if one visits the full article one sees 'a infectious agent'. Is this a revision that's merely taking time to propagate? 206.223.190.7 ( talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the lead that says "In evolution, viruses are an important means of horizontal gene transfer, which increases genetic diversity." however I can't see anything in the body of the article about this. First of all, the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the text and there shouldn't be anything in it that isn't at least mentioned later. Secondly, the discovery of this this mechanism for gene transfer revolutionised the thinking about genetics so I think more needs to be said about it. Richerman ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The introduction lists various virus targets:
I recall reading an article in Scientific American recently where it was discovered that viruses even infect other viruses, called a "satellite". I found Wikipedia had an article on Virophages and added it to the list, with the link.
Someone else took exception to that, and reverted. Rather than continue an edit war, I'm presenting it here. Perhaps the redactor could propose better grammar, rather than just undoing it?
Since this is a new extremum of the range, I think it's important to not exclude it in the "to" of the stated range.
— Długosz ( talk) 21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed mentioned several times in the body, with links and direct references. The article I recall indicated that the satellite virus became packaged up with the "infected" one, and relied on the host's infection mechanisms which it hijacked for its own purposes. But, the current understanding of all that is on it's own page. The intro just needs to say the interesting things to be found in the body, and necessarily less precise. I'll change it, using the wording you suggested. User:Długosz
I came here looking for information about how long a virus may stay viable on a surface (ie a door handle). I don't see that. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Viruses cannot be viable (capable of living) because they are not alive. Lestrade ( talk) 15:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Should there be a direct link to the computer virus on the top of this page, as it's pretty common, many people typing in "virus" will be looking for the computer virus. 207.69.137.6 ( talk) 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Great new section, Graham. You might be interested in PMID 16163346 and PMID 17853907. I don't have access, but the abstract makes them look useful for this section. Colin° Talk 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In the definition of virus at the top of the article it is stated that a virus is a type of "infectious agent". If you look up infectious agent (synonym with "pathogen"), these are defined as a type of "biological agent" that cause disease. The page for biological agent define these as "viruses, bacteria..." etc. This might be more a problem with the "biological agent" page, I suppose, but is there a way to avoid this?
Also, the initial definition is too broad, as it would also apply to viroids, satellite viruses and prions. The definition is narrowed down later in the article to include only particles that have both genetic material AND a protein capsid. Maybe the definition should be "A particle consisting of genetic material and a proteinaceous coat that can only replicate inside a host cell" or something like that.
It is apparent that viruses are commonly seen as "bad"... That is not necessarily true:
"...It's is supposed by many evolutionary anthropologists that viruses, specifically retrovirus, which employ the enzyme RNA dependent DNA polymerase (reverse transcriptase), have been responsible for many of the translocations found in mammilian evolution. furthermore, several virus species are responsible for healthy bacterial growth, which, in turn, benefit the human host."
"It is possible that telomerase, the enzyme involved in extending the lifetime of cells and maintaining stem cells, evolved from viral enzymes since it's closest relatives are retroviral reverse transcriptase enzymes."
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=339992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitoergosumleo ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 March 2010
The "Life properties" section states that the question whether viruses are alive has not yet been answered. After 102 years of expensive research, it would be astounding if scientists could not answer this question. By now, it should be common knowledge as to whether viruses are organic or mechanistic. Physicians prescribe antibiotics for viral illnesses. Disinfectants advertise their ability to kill viruses. Wikipedia posters ask about the viability of viruses. This is all done on the assumption that viruses are alive and can be killed. Is this true or false? An encyclopedia like Wikipedia should be able to answer such a simple question with authority. Lestrade ( talk) 14:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
The problem is a problem of definition. If you call alive that which has by itself no ability to reproduce or even have a metabolic activity, then a virus is not. If you call alive any genome that can reproduce itself by its own means or by exploiting another genome's designed "replicator", then viruses are. An interesting concept in that respect is that of the viral factory: a virion would not be a viruses' main form, rather, it would be the cell that has been conquered by the virus and turned into a viral cell/factory. In that respect, viruses can be considered as cellular life forms and as alive, it's just that people mistake their reproductive structures for their main form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.192.140 ( talk) 08:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I was about to correct what looked like a typo, "...is a characteristic of the all herpes viruses including the Epstein-Barr virus...", by removing the first "the". It would then read, "...is a characteristic of all herpes viruses including the Epstein-Barr virus...". But I don't know that latency is characteristic of /all/ herpes viruses, so I thought I'd ask first. Smoggyrob | Talk 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I challenge the notion that the sputnik virus infects other viruses. The sputnik virus phage co-infects other organisms with another virus. If you had a pure culture of mamavirus and added sputnik virus too it you wouldn't have anything like an infection going on until you exposed them to another organism. If we compare that relationship to another set of organisms like DED and Elm Bark Beetles. DED needs the action of the beetles to successfully attack the host, and by destroying the common host ( Elm) DED damages the fitness of the EBB, however it would be a mistake to claim that DED is infecting EBB's. -- 216.67.4.221 ( talk) 23:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand this table and it needs to be verified by a reliable source. The use of "similar" is not helpful and where do the poxviruses fit in? I think most readers will be very confused by this. Graham Colm ( talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Nucleocapsid structure | dsDNA | ssDNA | dsRNA | RNA+ | ssRNA- |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Naked icosahedron or similar | all | all | all | all | none |
with an envelope | Herpes virus family, Hepadna virus family | none | none | Corona-, retro-, toga-, flavivirus families | |
helical with envelope | all¹ |
¹ The arenavirus family has both a negative sense RNA and an ambisense one.
Why can't the article tell us if viruses are alive (organic) or dead (mechanical)? Science has been studying viruses for many years. Is this question beyond human knowledge? Many disinfectants openly advertise their ability to kill viruses. Lestrade ( talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
An encyclopedia article that can't state whether viruses are alive or not. "It all depends on what you mean by": dead, alive, kill, etc. "Most virologists do not care." This is "sweeping it under the rug" par excellence. This issue takes a practical turn when your doctor prescribes an antibiotic for a viral infection simply because it seems to alleviate the symptoms. Shouldn't this be common knowledge? It has a financial implication when the manufacturer of a disinfectant claims to the public that his product kills viruses. People depend on Wikipedia to give them correct information. Unlike virologists, many people might care to know the answer. Lestrade ( talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
I've removed a sentence and reference that was added in March 2009 after noticing that this IP and others have a long term history of spamming this authors work. This was one of the better edits, but I don't think that an essay by a philospher such as this is a reliable source for information like this regardless. See User_talk:83.215.123.233 and (at present) this ANI thread for more details. Smartse ( talk) 23:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain to me what the term "one hundred times smaller" means... It is both scientifically and grammatically impossible. To use such a term is sloppy, amateurish and unprofessional and for a resource like Wikipedia which is clamouring for respectability, to have such things only adds fodder to claims that it is an unreliable resource. I will be changing the line to "one one-hundredth" every time it is reverted until such time that it is left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.130.215 ( talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"The effects of marine viruses are far-reaching; by increasing the amount of respiration in the oceans, viruses are indirectly responsible for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by approximately 3 gigatonnes of carbon per year."
This sentence does not make sense, since respiration produces carbon dioxide. The cited article does not say what this sentence does. Graham853 ( talk) 20:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
In one place the article says "5,000 viruses have been described in detail", but another part talks of "2,000 recognised species of animal, plant, and bacterial viruses". 86.186.34.238 ( talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
The preamble reads 'Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and are the most abundant type of biological entity." What is that supposed to mean? Most widely spread? Certainly not number of species, there are many more Insect species for example. Can it mean greatest number of individuals? Nope, Bacteria are more 'abundant' if that is the measured criteria. We need to clarify this claim or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.142.136 ( talk) 07:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC) #
So, it's saying that molecular techniques have been most useful, yet these techniques rely on ancient DNA or RNA that actually does not exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.2.205 ( talk) 02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I remember seeing an article in New Scientist which said that viruses were essential to the reproduction of placental mammals - one set of viruses in the embryo made the placental a syncitium, so it passed either way oxygen, nutrients and wastes, but blocked antibodies etc. in either direction; another set in the embryo weakened the mother's immune system to inhibit it from attacking the embryo. If this is still regarded as a valid hypothesis, I think it should be added, possible in "Role in evolution". -- Philcha ( talk) 22:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
In the section Bacteria we find this on the density of bacteriophages in seawater: "...reaching levels of 250,000,000 bacteriophages per millilitre of seawater.[197]" . Then later, in Role in Aquatic Ecosystems: "...a teaspoon of seawater contains about one million of them.[205]" . Given that one teaspoon is about five ml, that works out to about 200,000 phage per ml, which is over a thousand times less than the former claim. I think the difference should be addressed, for example "the average is X and the maximum is Y", or "there are various estimates ranging from X to Y". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.138.97 ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)