Talk:Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus

Errors

There are significant errors on this page. The bits about EEHV3-6 are incorrect. The viruses described in Wellehan et al, 2008 are in the subfamily Gammaherpesvirinae and are not known endotheliotropic herpesviruses. These viruses should be termed Elephantid herpesviruses 3-6, and not EEHV3-6. There are additional betaherpesviruses of elephants, but information on these viruses has not been presented in the peer reviewed literature yet by the researchers who have done the work on these. If the title of the article is Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus, then the elephant gammaherpesviruses should not be presented as members of this group, only the betaherpesviruses in the genus Proboscivirus.

Jim Wellehan University of Florida128.227.62.40 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Am I right in interpreting this as -

• Elephantid herpesvirus (EIHV) is a general term for two distinct groups of herpesviruses which affect elephants; EIHV 1-2, which are betaherpesviruses, and EIHV 3-6, which are gammaherpesviruses.
• The two groups are not directly linked from a taxonomic perspective (they're both herpesviruses, obviously, but in different families)
• The EIHV 1-2 group is known as EEHV.
• The EIHV 3-6 group... isn't.

This distinction would certainly explain some of my confusion trying to reconcile the sources - I think I got a bit confused by this, which treats EIHV 3 as part of the EEHV set, but looking at it again I begin to see where I get sidetracked. Hmmm.

I'll have a stab at it over the next couple of days and try to reflect these corrections; thanks again for letting me know! Shimgray | talk | 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it should be a bit more accurate now. Thanks again for the feedback. Shimgray | talk | 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make a similar point to Jim's earlier about the confusion created here between the EEHVs and the elephant gammaherpesviruses in the October version (but it evidently did not take). The article has been improved in the Nov version, but to say as in note 10 that others have have been confused is not really the case. The Elephant Care site does refer to EEHV3 for which you have correctly added the reference for our Garner et al paper. At the time, we could not justify referring to the two viruses described there as different species, but is now clear that EEHV3a and EEHV3b should be called EEHV3 and EEHV4. Two more viruses that rate as distinctive species (EEHV5 and EEHV6) have also now been discovered but not yet published about. EEHV1a and EEHV1b have chimeric character relative to one another and are partly very siomilar and partly very different at the genetic level so do not rate as distinct species. All of these EEHVs together form the Proboscivirus genus and they differ greatly from the five elephant gammaherpesviruses (for which the term EGHV1 to EGHV5 has been proposed). We also now know that the pulmonary nodules in wild African elephants carry both EEHV2 and EEHV3, but we don't yet know whether EEHV1 is also there (you imply that it is). The rest is pretty much OK, although clearly drawing heavily from my comments as used in Dan Koehl' site.

 GaryHayward (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Africans

As for the african Gypsie, it is not 100% confirmed that herpes virus contributed to her death. I will try to do a follow-up on her, and come back with reliable data. Until then, I suggest avoid label african elephant Gypise as a confirmed herpes virus case on african elephant. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Highly fatal?

The intro text has "highly fatal" in two places. That sounds very odd to me - how can something be highly fatal? Better would be "frequently fatal" - assuming that is what was meant. Terrycojones (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)