Talk:Hepatitis C virus

Nobel 2020

Harvey Alter, Michael Houghton en Charles Rice get the 2020 Nobel Prize for Medicine for the discovery of the HCV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:5084:DF00:5C96:AD9F:7496:9358 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Lifespan of HCV

How hardy is it outside the body/liver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblakesx (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In dried blood plasma, the answer is "at least 16 hours", but less than 4 days - according to this study (PDF). -- MarcoTolo 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

in dried serum 5 days according to : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22013220; Doerrbecker J1, Friesland M, Ciesek S, Erichsen TJ, Mateu-Gelabert P, Steinmann J, Steinmann J, Pietschmann T, Steinmann E. Inactivation and survival of hepatitis C virus on inanimate surfaces.J Infect Dis. 2011 Dec 15;204(12):1830-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jir535. Epub 2011 Oct 19. "inavtivation of HCV with 70%-propanol-1 or propanol-1 in combination with glutaral, or QAC"-1osecampo (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Vaccination

Discussion of vaccination here is a little weak, and should perhaps be relocated to hepatitis C.

The statement that treatment with interferon is "palliative" does not belong under "vaccination", and is just plain incorrect. Sustained virologic response (SVR) happens in half (for genotype 1) or nearly 80% (genotypes 2 and 3), and is essentially a cure of the infection. Treatment is discussed in the hepatitis c article, so I removed it from this one. Scray (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about origin of electron micrograph image of hepatitis c virus?

I notice that the image of the virus ( "Em flavavirus-HCV samp1c.jpg" ) is of uncertain origin. It was uploaded in November 2007 by user < PhD Dre >, but he or she did not indicate where the image came from. was it his or her own scientific research? was it published? if so, where is the citation for a scientific publication? I also note that < PhD Dre > has some, um, unhappy comments on his user page, which s/he concludes by saying "Goodbye, forever." Makes me kinda nervous. If a source - published or unpublished - for this image cannot be established, perhaps it should be considered for deletion. After all, almost *any* enveloped virion - for example, HIV or Hepatitis B - will look kind of like this image. In the early part of my career I was a molecular virologist working on HCV, and our lab tried (but failed) to get an EM of the virus. I believe that subsequently images *have* been obtained and published, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the provenance of this particular image is undocumented. Any other thoughts? - lanephil, 2/25/08 Lanephil (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Structure of HCV virion

The effort is obvious and appreciated, but extrapolation from other viruses is not valid. What is the evidence that there is a "protein shell" or that it is icosahedral? What is the evidence that there is an RNA core surrounded by protein (rather than intermingling of RNA and protein)? Without such evidence, the text and the new image are misleading. I'll wait a little to see if there's a reply before being bold.Scray (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would leave it until a better free image is available. There is evidence and, as you can see, I'm working on the article.--GrahamColm^Talk 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Transmission?

Transmission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.161.31 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See Hepatitis_c#Transmission - more relevant to the disease than the virus. Scray (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Genome diagram showing the proteins

Isn't this diagram about 15 years out of date? Where's p7 between E2 and NS2? I'll try to find/make a better diagram if I have time Arkady darrell (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hep C isolation and culture

I can't find anything stating whether the entire Hep C virus has ever been isolated and grown in culture. I don't think it has, but we should say so in either case. There is a 2007 Seattle Times article here, but it says "Scientists injected the cells into a culture with genetic material from the virus." I wonder if this is the same cDNA snippet of viral code found in 1989. Also, the article says that the "the next step in the research is to see whether laboratory animals can be infected with the laboratory-grown viruses." I think the author probably meant "laboratory-engineered", but regardless they apparently are still trying to meet at least that postulate. We might put this in the article as an update, but we have to be clear about what "genetic material" means. Any comments? BruceSwanson (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

According to PMID 19670425, "Soon after cloning of the HCV genome in 1989, it was reported by a number of groups that primary human and chimpanzee hepatocytes could be infected with HCV-positive patient serum" and "full-length functional clones" are regularly used in vitro and have been "found to be infectious and to convey disease in chimpanzees after intrahepatic inoculation". I think it's safe to say that Hep C would be considered 'isolated and grown in culture' by any reasonable virologist. This is probably a useful review to use in the article. — Scientizzle 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Swanson is performing original research, which leads him to the position that HCV is an engineered, artificial entity. This position is not supported by the scientific literature and has no place in a Wikipedia article. I invite Bruce Swanson to consider moving his apparent virus denialism to more appropriate venues. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon probably meant to say secondary-source research, since the Seattle Times I mentioned above is a secondary source. I think "laboratory-engineered" would have been appropriate because it's about a piece of genetic material from the virus being inserted into cells, not just the virus itself -- going by the story itself. Anyway, I think the story could be used as a reference in the article because it isn't original research.

I notice that Keepcalmandcarryon has no apparent objection to the real original research submitted for our approval by Scientizzle, above, who concludes from it: I think it's safe to say that Hep C would be considered 'isolated and grown in culture' by any reasonable virologist, a veritable mother-lode of weasel words far indeed from a unqualified statement of fact. On the other hand, if he can come up with a secondary source with the same conclusion of sorts, fine. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Times is not a scientific journal, making your second-hand interpretation of an oversimplified, popular secondary source completely irrelevant. We use medically reliable sources, not newspapers, for verifying scientific claims. What is OR is your step from "genetic material" to "I wonder if..." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My "second-hand interpretation" may indeed be completely irrelevant. But remember that it was made on the Talk page, as was my "I wonder if this is the same cDNA snippet of viral code found in 1989" query. Such speculations are perfectly acceptable for a Talk page if they are on topic and made in good faith, and if they're not they can be ignored. Your comment that my Talk query constitutes original research is rather odd, if I may be so charitable as to describe it that way.

It's true that the Seattle Times isn't a scientific publication and that may be a fair criticism. It also may not be. It depends on what is being verified or asserted. My Talk query was whether Hep C has been isolated and grown in culture. I suggested the Seattle Times article, with reservations, but it indeed may be useless for that purpose. The primary source document suggested by Scientizzle, above, is exactly the kind of thing medically reliable sources warns about: Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources. . . . And so Scientizzle is wrong when he concluded, above, "This is probably a useful review to use in the article" unless he uses it to assert some other conclusion or fact clearly evident in the abstract (not "review"). BruceSwanson (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what review article is, Bruce? PMID 19670425 is a literature review (clear from the article content--of which I read a decent fraction--as well as the PubMed listing), thus a secondary source. That article is a collection and evaluation of a large number of peer-reviewed publications. It's exactly the type of source WP:MEDRS recommends, which is exactly why I did... — Scientizzle 17:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, literature reviews from peer-reviewed academic publications are the gold standard of reliable sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that comment reveals no understanding of WP:MEDRS. PMID 19670425 is certainly a far better source than any news article ever could be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

HCV picture

Is there a specific reason to assume this is not an electronmicrograph of the virus? Images can and should be removed if not acceptable under fair use or the GNU free documentation license, or if there is proof that the image is not actually what it is. Assume good faith and keep the image as it's better than nothing even if not perfect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to dispute your logic. You wrote that the image should be deleted "if there is proof that the image is not actually what it [purports to be]." You surely don't mean that. Following such reasoning, all kinds of competing images from unknown sources would be vying for article space. To prevent that from happening, Wikipedia demands a reliable source.

In all probability the image was put there in good faith, but if you look at its history it doesn't satisfy WP:RELY at all. The issue isn't merely one of quality. We simply don't know what it is of. It's all over the Internet with no reliable source. By contrast, the Hepatitis A image of equally poor quality is from the CDC. I'm afraid that nothing is better than anything at all simply because it looks like a virus. BruceSwanson (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Blobs are back again, originally posted by one PhD_Dre, departed from Wikipedia, and now defended without comment so far by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex. Ask yourself: why doesn't this picture come from the CDC. Any answers? I can think of one. Anyone want to know what it is? BruceSwanson (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My last edit of the day got tripped up by the spamfilters, so here it is now, belated.

Do you have a better image that is of the actual viral particles themselves? Assume good faith applies - what reason do you have to doubt that it is actually an electromicrograph of the HCV particle? For images, we do not need a reliable source that the image is what it is, we trust the editor. So yes, I do mean that - to date I have seen no evidence that it is not what it purports to be. Further, there is evidence to suggest the image is acceptable to medical professionals (though given the image is fair use, it could be they took the image from wikipedia and reused it. [1]. Right now there is no good reason to remove the image, particularly since there is no equivalent replaceable one.

Also see WP:BRD. Please discuss before reverting. I've brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Hep_C electromicrograph question.

The appropriate guidance is WP:IMAGE, not WP:RELY, which is about sources.

That User:PhD Dre has left is irrelevant. The reason we don't have one from the CDC is because as far as I know the images on the CDC website are not public domain or fair use (though perhaps they are). Please review WP:IMAGE to learn where images come from and how they are used.

If you have a reason, simply state it. Playing games is aggravating and pointless. If you want to upload a new image from the CDC website, you are welcome to do so, after ensuring it meets our guidelines on finding and using images. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the CDC Public Health Image Library and found no images of the hepatitis C virus, so that's another reason we are not using an image from them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: If you have a reason, simply state it. Playing games is aggravating and pointless.

My reason is the reason I've been simply stating for some time now: the image has no reliable source and we simply can't know what it is of. Taking it on "good faith" is the silliest thing I've ever heard of, with the possible exception of The appropriate guidance is WP:IMAGE, not WP:RELY, which is about sources. As for the Public Health Image Library, and indeed the CDC as well, the reason they have no image is because no image exists! As to why no image exists, that's entirely another matter and one beyond the scope of this discussion. Probably its just too hard to find. BruceSwanson (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying the hep C virus doesn't exist? I'll take AGF from a retired editor over a bare claim form someone with AIDS denialist activities any day. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the standard is different for images: They have to look like the thing being illustrated. They do not have to be the thing being illustrated. Reliable sources and detailed provenance aren't actually required.

This issue has been addressed in multiple contexts (e.g., "Is this mineral from the specific geographic location claimed by the poster, or is it from a neighboring area, whose mineral looks the same?"), and always gets the same response: So long as it look like what the uploader says it is, then it is a useful illustration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU, I said the virus image doesn't exist, probably because the virus itself is too hard to find. And that would be why the Public Health Library and the CDC (apparently) don't have an image. And here is a comment on the matter by the editor Graham Colm, in which he says I doubt that an electron micrograph of HCV from a reliable source is available. Flaviruses are probably indistinguishable by electron microscopy but this is no excuse for this image's retention. It's not a good image in any case.

By "retired editor" I assume you mean the individual who posted the picture in the first place, PhD_Dre, who actually leaves a pretty good retiring comment. And now as to my "AIDS denialist" activities -- to what exactly are you referring? Please be specific.

WhatamIdoing, are you serious? For starters, the issue is whether anyone knows what the Hep C virus looks like. Apparently the Public Health Library and the CDC don't. As for the mineral-location analogy, no one is claiming that the image in question comes from any particular time or place. Presumably all of the Hep C virions look pretty much the same at a given level of magnification. No, the issue here is one of fact alone and nothing else. If we don't have a reliable source for the pix, it should be deleted. On the other hand, if someone has an illustration based on reliable source data, that might be OK. But imagine the current Hep C picture with the following caption: This image looks like what PhD_Dre says it is.

You wrote that images "have to look like the thing being illustrated. They do not have to be the thing being illustrated." I can't think of an example in photography. If a pix claims to be of Mt. Rushmore and looks like Mt. Rushmore, it doesn't have to be of Mt. Rushmore? I think your comment does apply to technical illustrations, or even (obviously) to purely artistic representations of a non-abstract nature. BruceSwanson (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The virus has apparently been easy enough to find to produce a coherent body of research on the topic. I'm perfectly willing to assume the uploading editor wasn't lying. Again, any source that the Hep C viral particles can't, or haven't been photographed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the uploading editor was lying too. But that doesn't change the fact that it has no reliable source. It could be a picture of any number of viruses. We simply don't know. As for a source that the Hep C virus hasn't been photographed, how about the fact that the CDC data-base apparently doesn't have one, given the fact that you looked for one there and couldn't find it?

Here's a pix with a much better source: [2]. It's from the Hepatitis C Dartmouth Medical School website. I don't know if it's a fair use pix though. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother discussing it until it is uploaded under proper fair use guidelines. If the picture can be uploaded under fair use, it is a better image. Finding out and uploading it would be useful. Start at WP:IMAGE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you have correctly understood what I wrote: So long as it looks like Mt Rushmore, the image does not have to be of Mt Rushmore. If, for example, you have produced a photo-realistic oil painting of Mt Rushmore, and decided to say that it was just a snapshot, then Wikipedia simply doesn't care -- because the reader will receive the same benefit from the illustration.

If you believe it impossible for even an expert to determine that this image is not HepC (e.g., because even if it turned out to be something else, it looks (exactly) like HepC, then that's good enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I follow you. If you have a photo-realistic oil painting of Mt. Rushmore, and decided to say it was just a snapshot, then Wikipedia editors simply won't care -- but only because they wouldn't know it was a photo-realistic oil painting instead of the snapshot you said it was. If they knew otherwise they would -- I think it's fair to say -- insist on a correction.

As for the next part, I don't know what you mean when you say If you believe it impossible for even an expert to determine that this image is not HepC (e.g., because even if it turned out to be something else, it looks (exactly) like HepC, then that's good enough. First, it has yet to be established that anyone at all knows what Hep C looks like, because it has yet to be established that an electron-micrograph has been taken of it. I refer you to Graham Colm who says, I doubt that an electron micrograph of HCV from a reliable source is available. Flaviruses are probably indistinguishable by electron microscopy but this is no excuse for this image's retention. It's not a good image in any case. He says that here.

We can let this matter rest for now, as per here, but rest assured that Dartmouth will never reply to my request for permission to publish their purported micrograph of Hep C. That's because Dartmouth just grabbed their pix off the Internet like PhD_Dre did. Graham Colm is right. No verifiable image of Hep C exists. After a decent interval to allow Dartmouth not to reply (and you can contact them yourself here), we should delete the present "image" because of its lack of a verifiable source. Do we know what the picture of ? That is the only question of importance. What somebody says the picture is of is ridiculous if submitted as a source. Who can tell one blurry image of a virus from another? Are you saying that it doesn't matter? I think that you are. BruceSwanson (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Graham Colm is not saying he doubts such a micrgraph exists, he's saying that he doubts such a micrograph is available from a reliable source. They are different statements and it is equivocal what he is actually saying - and since he never removed the image, he didn't feel strongly enough either way. He may conclude that it's not a good image for a variety of reasons - for instance, it has a watermark, it's blurry, and covered with striations - good reasons to replace the image, not a good reason to remove it. Images are meant to depict the subject of the article. If the Dartmouth image is not fair use or released under GNU, then we can't use the image and the discussion ends. Your approach of "delete everything that doesn't have a reliable source" would decimate any image of anything that's not well-known; for instance, all of the molecular formula created by users for the {{infobox drug}} images. It's not a good approach, several people have said this, and you have no consensus for removal - so please don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being late commenting on this. It is a very poor image technically but it still looks like a flavivirus, so I have no reason to doubt that it is HCV. This is an elusive virus and decent electron micrographs are very difficult to produce and are thus scarce. I think a free, high quality electron micrograph will be almost impossible to find at the moment. Beggars can't be choosers, and this image is better than none. It can be argued that an electron micrograph is not needed in the hepatitis C article, but one is definitely needed in this one. Until something better is available please do not remove the image. Because of the rarity of free images, I have had to draw some of the ones used in this article. They are only used to illustrate the text, which is sourced. I think we shouldn't worry about the image in question - it too is only used to illustrate the text. We cannot, of course, be held responsible for how our images are used elsewhere. Graham Colm (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture here from an NIH site...am I correct in remembering that images from US government websites are more readily usable? Images aren't my strong point... — Scientizzle 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It says it's from CDC, so it probably is free to use. Unfortunately, it is a very small image in gif format and it is hard to discern the morphology of the virus particles. I think they are smothered with antibody, which doesn't help; this is a technique often used to detect elusive viruses. Graham Colm (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't specify Hep C, and could be another viral particle; Hep B and C appear to be around the same size. There is a specific template at the Wikimedia Commons for CDC files, but it also specifies that not all images are public domain. If you look in the Public Health Image Library (PHIL), you can find what looks like a B&W version of this very image (I don't think the link is direct, it's image 8153 - plugging this in to quick search leads to the image), and the caption reads "This transmission electron micrograph (TEM) revealed numerous hepatitis virions, of an unknown strain of the organism." We have no reason to doubt the current image, but there is an actual reason to consider this new image to not be of Hep C. Though, incidentally, it is public domain.

I've undone the change by BruceSwanson that added "purported" to the image caption. We still have no reason to doubt the origins and depiction of this image, it's jarring for the reader and seems to serve no purpose aside from casting doubt on the image based on one editor's taste. It's an extension of the dispute already resolved on this page, and I don't believe adding "purported" helps the page or reader in any way. Far from solving the problem (a problem that only exists for one editor) it casts doubt on an image with no real justification. I don't believe there is consensus for this caption and I don't think it's a good idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my link above--I did notice that the caption doesn't make clear that the particles are HCV, but it is presented on an HCV-specific page. The Public Health Image Library page, though does provide pause. Thanks. — Scientizzle 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC).

I've been in touch with some virologists at Scripps, they may be able to provide us with a better cryoEM image. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A cryo-electronmicrograph would be wonderful. Graham Colm (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If it comes from Scripps with permission to publish, don't expect the caption to say "Hepatitis C virus". It will either more specific and limited, or more general. But I doubt Scripps or any other institution will give permission. I've twice tried to pin Dartmouth down on its purported Hep C image but they've never replied to my queries. And without permission to publish, purported is what the image is, just like the blobs, ripped from the Internet without a source and reaffirmed as gospel in Wikipedia via a process of ratiocination that must be read (see entries above) to be believed possible. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Images and whitespace

Though there are lots of images, which is great, the dearth of text means you end up with a lot of whitespace; stacking all the images in the lead right after the infobox removes this whitespace, but also means the images aren't linked to a specific section. I'm editing using IE, which sucks, but we should ideally set up the page to be equally readable for all browsers. I'm not saying my solution is perfect (far from it!) but it's one option. What do people think?

I've also converted the table on protein structures to simple prose - it was fighting with the image to no good end, and I can't really see a reason to have such a limited amount of information in a table when prose works just as well. I'm not wedded to the changes, so feel free to edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better than it did! Hopefully, I will get round to expanding the text this weekend. I have been planning to do this for a long time but real life keeps getting in the way. I have an excellent collection of recently published textbooks and review articles. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

An online source on Hep C

Take a look at this page, from the Stritch School of Medicine. It has some interesting tidbits from its Hep C historical-data page:

On the virus itself: It took 20 years to demonstrate its existence by nucleic acid analysis and still in 1996 we cannot see it with electron microscopy The reason is that its concentration in the blood is very low, probably 1-10 virions per ml.

And again further on: We don't know the structure of the HCV because the virus has not been seen yet with the electron microscope due to the very scarce concentration of viral particles in the blood and tissues. Probably only 1-10 virions per ml are present in the blood. (Remember that PCR was in use in 1996.)

Compare that with this unreferenced claim from the article: HCV has a high rate of replication with approximately one trillion particles produced each day in an infected individual.

So it seems that as of 1996 the virus had never been seen, although you'd think that with a trillion new particles per day, catching a few would be relatively easy. But as of now only PhD_Dre has (claimed to have) made an EM of it, and its validity is vigorously defended by the majority of editors. But Corbis still labels its Yellow Fever images as being Hep C (see discussion here and here).

You'd think that when the virus was finally found via EM, it would have made some news and possibly even news in a secondary source. And a trillion virions produced per day, presumably even in asymptomatic individuals? And no footnote? BruceSwanson (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What correction(s) are you suggesting, specifically? 1996 was not long after the discovery of HCV; much has been learned since then. The quantity of HCV in the blood is about 10⁶ IU per mL, or about twice that in viral genome equivalents per mL; a little higher in those who also have HIV "coinfection" (PMID 10720503). There is probably one genome per virion. The difficulty with visualizing HCV virions is probably that they are complexed with low-density lipoproteins - this may obscure them and represent an immune evasion mechanism, and also explain how the LDL receptor might participate in the entry process into the hepatocyte (PMID 19751943). That said, there are some reliable sources with EMs of things that look like viral particles (i.e. about 60 nm, immunostaining with antibodies specific for HCV); I need to read the article more closely on this topic, but if we don't have any reliable sources I'll try to add one or two. I don't know that there are excellent, well-sourced, free images though. Your comments about viral production rate (about 10¹² per day, PMID 9756471) seems to be a non-sequitur, because viral production rates do not directly determine abundance. -- Scray (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I don't see any problem with the image displayed - the characteristics depicted represent current consensus on HCV virions. -- Scray (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What correction(s) am I suggesting, specifically? First, since one of the principles of Wikipedia is verifiability, I'm suggesting that the sentence asserting asserting 1-10 virions per ml be included in the article with the reference.

Second, the assertion that the virus had not been seem as of 1996 be included, with the reference.

You wrote: I don't know that there are excellent, well-sourced, free images though and followed that with I don't see any problem with the image displayed - the characteristics depicted represent current consensus on HCV virions. I think that's a bit of a non-sequitur. Can you call the present image well-sourced? I might add that reliable-sourced pay-sites for high-quality Hep C images display Yellow Fever and not Hep C, with the implied explanation that Yellow Fever is prototype. (I discuss that here in a bit of original research.)

The two primary sources you cite are typical of the breed (and how tired one gets of seeing them) -- abstracts only, presented in specialized knowledge from which conclusions are drawn, in violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding primary sources. BruceSwanson (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BS, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly at talk:Zidovudine, these are abstracts while the actual source is the paper itself. Abstracts are handy, but incomplete and the references used are to the full journal article. The sources are not "abstracts only" - the PMID link takes you to an abstract but for the full paper you would have to go to a university library, find it on-line in a full-text version, or buy it from the publisher. There are many editors with access to various databases that provide free full-text versions. You aren't one of them, but that's OK because we assume good faith. It's up to you to demonstrate, explicitly through reference to the source itself, that it is misrepresented. You seem unwilling or unable to make the trek and do the reading, but that's your problem, not ours. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Scray: Can we assume on good faith that you will read the complete papers (PMID 19751943, PMID 10720503, and PMID 9756471) and not just their abstracts? BruceSwanson (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, we can - that is the core of AGF, without any specific objections we can assume an accurate summary. The only time we would not assume good faith would be evidence to the contrary - in which case it is up to us to find and demonstrate that good faith is misplaced. Are you going to use his answer as a general means of objecting to the article's content, rather than doing the actual work of reading the articles looking for specific points that are inaccurately summarized? Here is Owen et al 2009, feel free to read it yourself to point out factual inaccuracies. Reading the full article is always preferred, but the abstract is also useful because it summarizes the main ideas. Unless you have any specific points to bring up, this looks like more wikilawyering that wastes considerable time without actually improving the page at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit reverted, clearly incorrect and poorly-sourced (not a peer-reviewed source). I already provided a refutation in a reliable source above (PMID 10720503), and this one is even more authoritative. I don't understand why you (BruceSwanson) won't respect reliable sources when they're cited properly. -- Scray (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's clearly not a reliable source even if not contradicted by other, obviously reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Readers, Scray wrote parenthetically, above, that the deleted source was not peer-reviewed, as if that is a criteria for deletion. This is that source Scray deleted. It's from the website for Stritch medical school. It is a secondary source, which is supposedly preferred in Wikipedia. And is the information actually incorrect? As Scray wrote, above, . . . viral production rates do not directly determine abundance.

Speaking of sources, I've put a {{fact}} after this doozie: HCV has a high rate of replication with approximately one trillion particles produced each day in an infected individual, which Scray is willing to let stand completely unsourced. BruceSwanson (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't use the fact tag on a talk page, that's not what it's for and interferes with the categorization of pages.

Second, it took me less than a minute to find a source for this exact point. Do you know what google scholar is? I ask only because you were unaware of the difference between an abstract and an article so it is quite clear your grasp of basic research is minimal. Your "doozie" is, as usual, completely valid and respected while your own actions demonstrate your usual AIDS denialism POV-pushing. The only good thing coming out of this sort of nonsense is that basic information is getting referenced, like an irritating grain of sand becoming a pearl through constant shelaquing.

Third, we don't use random webpages, even from institutions, even from respected medical schools, when it's a topic like this and there is a wealth of peer-reviewed journals to draw upon. Not being peer-reviewed is indeed a reason for deletion - see WP:MEDRS. This is particularly the case when the information is contradicted by actual peer reviewed sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Stritch is a good medical school, but the page Bruce linked appears to have been written in 1996 and not updated since. When more recent reputable sources are available, we should use those. It seems odd, to say the least, to perseverate about a fourteen-year-old webpage rather than to show an interest in what more recent and detailed sources have to say. Let's say I find an abandoned medical-school webpage, last updated in early 2003, saying that we don't know the cause of SARS. Does that trump more recent descriptions of the SARS coronavirus? MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

New image

I've got a new image of HCV from Charles Rice at Rockefeller University. See File:HCV EM picture.png. Do people want me to add a scale bar, using the original image of File:HCV pictures.png? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A scale bar would help, yes. Were you thinking of using this image as a replacement for the current, or in addition to? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whichever, it is higher resolution, but I'd leave that decision up to the regular editors of this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a 50 nm scale bar File:HCV EM picture 2.png. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I think we should replace the current one with this because it is a negatively stained preparation and is more in keeping with other micrographs in other virus articles. The current one is a positively stained thin section, which I think would be more useful in the body of the article. Please tell Prof. Rice that we are most grateful. Graham Colm (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a dick Tim, but could/should the scale be added to the image itself? I find it oddly comforting.

Graham, have you seen the source images on the commons? And is there any merit to the original picture's clustering of viral particles? I agree the newer one is a better choice for the infobox, can something illustrative be said about the three-blob version? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

They are probably three separate electron micrographs as opposed to a "cluster". But this image is very useful too because it shows that the virus particles have a fairly consistent size of around 50nm. This consistency of size of the virions is a characteristic of many viruses, particularly those that do not have a large lipid envelope or none. I think that this image too will be very informative and should be included when the article's text is expanded to make room for it. There is a little astigmatism, which is a common problem in electron microscopy, but I am so pleased to have these microghraphs. As an aside, we have to remember that when viruses are prepared for observation using an EM by the negative staining method, they dry in the vacuum of the instrument and shrink a little. I say this just in case any concerns are expressed over their not being exactly alike in size and shape. Graham Colm (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy on commons is that you shouldn't write any more text than necessary on images, since having English text and numerals would make it more difficult to use the image in different language Wikipedias. So I added a scale bar to the image, and said how long the bar was in the description. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good answer, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks similar to this, of Scripps, especially when you magnify it. It's not the same image but was perhaps achieved the same way: Virus-like particles isolated from HCV infected cell culture supernatants. Particles in cell culture supernatants were partially purified and concentrated, negatively stained and visualized by transmission electron microscopy. Our new image's Wikicommons description is Electron micrographs of hepatitis C virus purified from cell culture. Close.

Dr. Rice gives an interview here in which he says: One of the things we've been struggling with, with Hepatitis C, is the inability to replicate the virus in the laboratory. This has been a long road that has taken more than 10 years, and we're still not there yet. I wonder if this fact should be considered in writing the caption for the image he has provided Tim Vickers (see above). Without an explanation, laymen will wonder how the image of the virus was obtained if there is an "inability to replicate the virus in the laboratory." (I assume that imaging Hep C directly from a patient's blood sample remains a goal yet to be achieved. If this is correct, readers may need to be alerted to that fact. ) BruceSwanson (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That interview was from 2004, see PMID 16484368 for a 2006 free-access article describing in vitro cultivation of HCV (link to full text). Tim Vickers (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Scripps is a photo source site. Tim got this direct from a medical researcher. What possible reason is there to question either the fact that it is an electronmicograph of a hep C particle, or alter the caption? As has been discussed before - images are bound more by AGF than RS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tim Vickers, the HCV infectious clone of genotype 2a ,strain FL-J6/JFH, although getting closer to satisfying Koch's postulates for animals with human liver grafts, surely isn't the "Hepatitis C Virus" as that term is commonly understood. Could it be that the new image proposed here is one of those clonal strains, and if so, should it be so labeled? BruceSwanson (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The clone you refer to, FL-J6/JFH, is derived from Wakita's strain JFH-1 that was cloned from the blood of a Japanese patient with fulminant hepatitis. JFH-1 was infectious in cell culture, and cultured JFH-1 virus was infectious in chimpanzee (PMID 15951748, PMID 15939869). The virus recovered from the chimpanzee was consistent with the inoculum. It's a settled scientific fact that the virus we know as HCV causes hepatitis C. -- Scray (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is of course fully refuted here. BruceSwanson (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

How? Graham Colm (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you expecting -- a contextual quote and page numbers? BruceSwanson (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Graham Colm (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Jubin reference that refutes what I said, but I could have missed something - could you say what in what I said was refuted? In any case, the paper you cite was published 9 years ago - during which time a huge proportion of all the papers ever published on HCV came out, including the ones I cited. -- Scray (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of verifiability, I thought I should back up the claim I made, i.e. that "a huge proportion of all the papers ever published on HCV" have been published since 2001. So, I searched Pubmed for "hepatitis c virus[MeSH Major Topic] AND 1965:2001[dp]" (5518 results) and "hepatitis c virus[MeSH Major Topic] AND 2002:2010[dp]" (6379). This suggests that more than 50% of all publications on HCV have been published in the past 8.5 years, whereas HCV was discovered 21 years ago. Not surprising, really (which is why I initially made the statement without reference). I'll admit this quick search is neither exhaustive nor absolutely specific, but it seems like a reasonable estimate. -- Scray (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bruce seems the believe that a clonal line of the hepatitis C virus is not "Hepatitis C Virus as that term is commonly understood". I suspect that the problem here is that Bruce has concocted some odd definition to match his own ideas - which is why we seem to be talking past each other. However, in any case, the issue of the lead image is now settled, since we have a better resolution image that nicely illustrates the subject of the article. If you wish to discuss your own ideas about viruses, Bruce, I suggest you find some other place to do this, since Wikipedia is not a forum. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and suggest we change the lead image. Graham Colm (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from getting rid of The Blobs and PhD_Dre, the virtue of the new image is that it has a verifiable source. I'm in favor of it for both reasons. But the original description is EM of HCV produced in cell culture. I don't know why our caption shouldn't limit itself to that, as in Electron micrograph of Hepatitis C virus produced in cell culture. I've made the edit. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The source of this image is the exact same as the previous image - uploaded by an editor. The only difference is that TimVickers is the uploader now, instead of PhD_Dre. And just like if Tim left wikipedia, the image should still stay - because PhD_Dre left does not mean the image should be erased. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The new image has a better provenance and unlike, PhD Dre, Tim can be contacted—we know where he lives :-) The earlier image has not been deleted and there might be a place for it in this article once the article is expanded. I think we should concentrate now on improving the article—a lot of research is being published on hepatitis C virus and our article is in danger of becoming out of date. Graham Colm (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lymphotropism

Scray, Bartenschlater & Lohmann does mention lymphotropism, in the virus replication section:

". Apart from liver cells, there is strong evidence that HCV can also replicate in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) both in vivo and ex vivo or in experimentally infected B- and T-cell lines (see below). Such a lymphotropism may account for the numerous immunological disorders, in particular type II and type III cryoglobulinaemia, observed in more than 50% of chronic hepatitis C patients (Esteban et al., 1998 )."

Of course, it is ten years old and could be simply out of date. Also, is there now a (convenient) animal model for modelling HCV? Might explain the increase in knowledge about HCV since 2000. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not state that the paper does not mention lymphotropism, nor did I remove all mention of "lymphotropism"; indeed, I searched the article for "lympho" and the section you quote above is one of the ones I found. What I said in the edit summary was, "the cited reference makes no statement to suggest that lymphotropism is a mechanism of delivery of HCV to hepatocytes", hence I removed, "...using lymphotropism to reach the liver..."; do you see support for that claim in the cited reference? If so, i apologize for missing it. -- Scray (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. That was found in the text before the latest round of editing and I AGF that it was valid. Makes sense, but you're correct it's not in the article I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I do not think recent additions to this article are helpful in their current form. Most readers are not going to bother with any of this. They are a random collection of stats, mainly from primary sources, and no attention has been paid to logical flow and engaging prose. A lot of this could go into a table, but I doubt that much is needed at all. This is an encyclopedia – not an esoteric virology catalogue. Graham Colm (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that much of the recent changes adds what appears to be random facts. If it can be sourced to a good secondary source, than we can consider keeping it, otherwise it needs to be removed per WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm contemplating reverting. No one wants to read this. Graham Colm (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

review

might find this reference/review[3] of interest for the replication section, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)