Talk:Human herpesvirus 6

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

treatment and symptoms of this disease

integration into human chromosomal DNA?

Apparently, according to a single article I've found ([1]), it is quite common for human babies to be born with a chromosome encoding HHV-6, and for that to produce viable virions.

I'm not too happy with the single source, particularly since it references Pediatrics but can't give an issue number or page. However, the fact, if true, would be spectacularly interesting: it would make some HHV-6 infections more like retrovirus infections, and it's not quite obvious to me how it could have happened in the first place.

In more practical implications, a significant reservoir of humans producing virions from chromosomal DNA would make it virtually impossible for the disease to be eliminated without extensive genetic screening of embryos: If true and verifiably confirmed, that would be a significant point for a disease with a comparably large public health impact.

If anyone subscribes to Pediatrics, could they give a source for the article when published?

RandomP (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HHV-6A is not the only one. "There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome...)"(Endogenous retrovirus), See also Exanthema_subitum —Preceding unsigned comment added by DataSurfer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that chromosome 18 by any chance? MBP encodes from there. Given how tricky it is to fix HHV-6, I'd say we'd be better off trying to throw a spanner in its works rather than curing it outright. It seems to have a vulnerable U51 encoding region. First hurdle is finding it in DNA in the first place. What to do after that is a puzzle. I suppose you could get around it with some dainty alternate splicing or mark it as a 'do not encode' zone in your DNA. Autoimmunity seems to be causing a lot of collateral damage in the process of trying to get rid of it.
Getting rid of viruses in epidemiology and medicine could take a leaf from IT repair man's handbook. I somehow doubt virus infections in humans have been approached with IT methodologies very often. DNA is code after all. Also, ignore the date here, I'm not being spurious Shtanto (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is: Caroline Breese Hall, Mary T. Caserta, Kenneth Schnabel, Lynne M. Shelley, Andrea S. Marino, Jennifer A. Carnahan, Christina Yoo, Geraldine K. Lofthus, and Michael P. McDermott Chromosomal Integration of Human Herpesvirus 6 Is the Major Mode of Congenital Human Herpesvirus 6 InfectionPediatrics, Sep 2008; 122: 513 - 520.

Other references and complete presentation on chromosomal integration can be found at the HHV-6 Foundation's web site [2] . videos from the presentations at the last years meeting is available at the same site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.251.165 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HHV6 article cross-referencing with other wiki articles

I see that HHV-6 is implicated with many other illnesses. Is it worth linking to those pages where relevant when they occur? Cross linking would be helpful. The section on MS is very nicely done. I learned a lot :) Increasing overall meshing to help folks find answers is what wikipedia is about, right? Shtanto (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, that is great to hear. I did a research project on HHV-6 and incorporated my findings into this Wikipedia entry. I found the MS associations to be particularly intriguing. Vokesk (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, please increase linking to and from this hhv-6 article wherever applicable. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C600:E110:68E5:D25F:8D3D:7F79 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Optic Neuritus

My MS initially presented as a case of optic neuritis. Many other MSers have had similar onset. Rather points the finger at HHV-6a.

Eyewitness testimony carries a lot of weight in courts of law. Funny to think personal testimonials aren't similarly treated in medicine. Statistics appear to be more trustworthy than the human datapoints that made them possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtanto (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, hope all is well. Vokesk (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does LDN act on HHV?

I was reading the article on LDN recently. Although a lot of its claims are unfounded (still testimonially true) I noticed LDN treats what HHV causes. Could it just be an interesting coincidence? No studies yet, but I'd be surprised if we don't see one someday. To the people who have a HHV related condition, read the LDN page and draw your own conclusions.Shtanto (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to research this myself. LeadSongDog (talk) has previously pointed out that I am only a sample size of 1, but I have to start somewhere. Shtanto (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Split Human herpesvirus 6 to Human herpesvirus 6A and Human herpesvirus 6B?

As the article states:

HHV-6A and HHV-6B were classified as distinct species in 2012.[1]

There seems to be emerging data about the differences in the diseases these two cause.

Should we split the article? Tony Mach (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I would have had a go at splitting, but it is clear that at this time 2 almost identical articles would result. Hence I do not think a split would be appropriate. If you want to split then by all means go ahead. Op47 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, splitting may currently be unwarranted. The literature, especially dated articles, often do not distinguish strains. However, I feel that a split may become necessary during the next decade as we develop our understanding of HHV-6. Vokesk (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will remove the tags for now. Op47 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Adams MJ, Carstens EB. 2012. Ratification vote on taxonomic proposals to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2012). Arch Virol. doi 10.1007/s00705-012-1299-6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human herpesvirus 6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Human_herpesvirus_6"