Talk:Poliovirus

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePoliovirus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Stand-alone Poliovirus article

Evolution of polivirus

Interesting new article on the possible evolutionary origin of poliovirus:

Jiang P, Faase JA, Toyoda H, Paul A, Wimmer E, Gorbalenya AE (2007). "Evidence for emergence of diverse polioviruses from C-cluster coxsackie A viruses and implications for global poliovirus eradication". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (22): 9457–62. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700451104. PMID 17517601.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

-- MarcoTolo 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is interesting. Now that life-things have slowed down a bit, I will have time to to add some of the information to the article. (But if you want to add it, do feel free to do so). Thanks for pointing it out.--DO11.10 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

I have removed the following from the article, for now.

Researchers from SUNY Stony Brook have synthesized an artificial polio virus, the first synthetic virus.[1] The synthesis was accomplished by following a recipe on the internet and gene sequences they obtained by mail order. The synthetic polio virus was identical to natural polio viruses and was subsequently injected into mice to prove they were active. The animals suffered paralysis and died.

This is absolutely not the fault of the contributor who added it and the passage is really pretty faithful to the BBC story. There are, however, a couple of problems with including it here, just yet. Most of these issues stem from the sensationalism and simplification of the story by the mainstream news media. The first problem is that polio cannot normally infect mice, or anything but humans and apes, it needs a specific receptor that mice don't have. The mice that were used here are engineered to express the human poliovirus receptor, that is how mice were able to be infected with poliovirus. There is currently nothing in the article about the poliovirus receptor transgenic mice (I had planned to...) so just saying that mice were infected with the synthetic poliovirus and died gives the appearance of contradicting the "only humans and apes can be infected" portion of article. In short, the whole mice angle needs to be explained.

Second, the synthetic virus was not made quite so simply. Here is actually what happened: they got the genetic code of poliovirus from a "public database", they then converted the published RNA sequence to a DNA sequence, ordered short stretches of the sequence from -yes- a mail order company and layered the fragments together (this took over a year). The scientists then hired a DNA synthesis company to assemble the rest of the virus and added 19 markers to the DNA, so that they could distinguish the synthetic poliovirus from the original. They then used enzymes to convert the DNA back into RNA, its natural state. The BBC article indeed boils all of this down to "The synthesis was accomplished by following a recipe on the internet and gene sequences they obtained by mail order." As if any yahoo with a credit card and an internet connection could make poliovirus (or <gasp> Ebola and smallpox) in his living room.

Third, that the "synthetic polio virus was identical to natural polio viruses" is just untrue. As I said they added 19 markers to the synthetic version so that they could identify it, which weren't supposed to alter the viruses behavior. But they did. Sure, the virus replicated, infected mice, and caused paralysis, **but** the synthetic version was between 1,000 and 10,000 times less lethal than the original virus. I wouldn't call that identical. The above can all be found in:[2] if you have a Science account.

So while the paper they published ([3]) was pretty unique and groundbreaking, the story was far more complex, and far less alarming, than was alluded to in the BBC article. I will work on including something in the article about the transgenic mice, and add the artificial synthesis bit to a more generalized section about the study of poliovirus.--DO11.10 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Whitehouse, Dr. David (July 11, 2002). "First synthetic virus created". BBC NEWS.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ Couzin J (2002). "Virology. Active poliovirus baked from scratch". Science. 297 (5579): 174–5. doi:10.1126/science.297.5579.174b. PMID 12114601.
  3. ^ Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E (2002). "Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template". Science. 297 (5583): 1016–8. doi:10.1126/science.1072266. PMID 12114528.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • With only a little tweaking, you could take the well-worded discussion you just wrote and stick it in.... (nicely summarized, by the way). -- MarcoTolo 20:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any ideas feel free to tweak away :) It would probably save me loads of work. --DO11.10 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence?

When was it sequenced, and how long is the sequence? AxelBoldt (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poliovirus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article merits a pass. Congratulations to all the many editors who have worked on it. This article is a stunning example of collaboration wiki-style. Wow!

The article is well written (although not perfect), in standard style, factually accurate in all respects that I know of (I checked no sources), well cited using reliable sources (hence verifiable), broad in coverage (although below I note an important omission), neutral (remarkably so), very stable, and well illustrated (all images licensed, relevant, well captioned).

The article is not far from FA, but here I am reviewing it only for GA. I have a few suggestions for improvement:

  • This sentence is unclear: The distinct speciation of poliovirus probably occurred as a result of change in cellular receptor specificity from intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), used by C-cluster coxsackie A viruses, to CD155; leading to a change in pathogenicity, and allowing the virus to infect nervous tissue. Is it saying speciation was driven by genetic drift or lineage sorting in the host species? Or that the mutation mentioned in the previous sentence in effect created a new host for the virus?
  • Yes I agree this is not clear. I'll have to think about this.
  • What is the natural host? Humans? Or is there an animal reservoir? The answer is implied, by omission, but this information should be stated explicitly.
  • Yes, you're right, the natural host is humans, (children mainly).
  • The section Life cycle probably should come before the section Origin and serotypes.

156.99.162.253 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Why natural host is human? Humans have been around for millions of years and unless fossil evidence is uncovered that indicates polio, then it seems to me that this question cannot be answered. Egyptian mummies were id'd with smallpox scars hence furnish the earliest evidence of the origin of smallpox. It may well be that there is a 'trigger' population of humans that allow the invasion of polio, smallpox, etc. Or that in combo with some volcanic eruption that ashes the atmos for decades, changes weather patterns, shrinks and allows pollution of ground water, forces human migration, etc. Did polio arrive 3,000 bc with smallpox? Excellent article. 2012 Viral world by G Zimmer, does not claim eradication of polio along with smallpox, and further, says --like your article about polio-- that the smallpox virus is not understood.[reply]

  • The article leaves me with two big questions. Which of the 3 serotypes is used in the injected polio vaccine? And what is the world distribution of those serotypes?
  • Those articles don't answer my questions (or I wouldn't have asked them, KWIM?). Neither article describes the world distribution of polio virus serotypes, only of epidemic outbreaks. I have in mind a world distribution map, perhaps an historical one. Polio virus says the original IPV was a product of all three serotypes, but what does that mean? Is it a recombinant? An admixture? And what about the new, more potent IPV? From what was it derived? Reference strains of each serotype were selected for the original IPV; where is the center of distribution of each of those reference strains in the wild? --Una Smith (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Una. Graham Colm Talk 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, well done. --Una Smith (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to review the article Una. So far, my contributions to the article have been minimal, but your review has given me the inspiration to make some important edits. Graham Colm Talk 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with GA-pass

This should have been put on hold:

  • There have been 6 edits (2 related to vandalism) since May 17. Your concerns are most likely not going to be addressed...
  • Per the Manual of Style, there should be no references in the lead.
  • I don't understand this article at all...too much jargon...does it have to/is it supposed to be this way??

Cheers, the_ed17 03:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks...just remember, Big Brother will be watching... =) the_ed17 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I was rather (and happily) surprised when Graham nominated this article for GA. This article was born a spin off of the main polio article mainly to enable its further expansion. I wrote the bulk of it, however a lot of the technical information was added by someone very knowledgeable at McGill University which is (arguably of course) the leading institution in poliovirus research. Given this, and that I am personally not a poliovirus expert, I was reluctant to change some of the jargon for fear that I would alter the factual accuracy. Wikipedia:Lead section states that "[the lead]...should be carefully sourced as appropriate...". The references in the lead are required there as the information is not restated later in the article. I will be happy to help address some the specific concerns above, and if there are specific instances of jargon that can be better explained, please point them out. I can try my best to de-jargon without altering the accuracy.--DO11.10 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any information that appears only in the lead, should be repeated (and presumably expanded) in the body. Colin°Talk 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and this is what I was talking about when I said, "does it have to/is it supposed to be this way??" If you can't change it, no big deal...I really had no idea if it could be altered, I just added a note on the off chance that it could be. the_ed17 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly more work is needed, but the article is above GA standard imo, that's why I nominated it. There is some way to go before it's ready for FA candidature, but that's achievable. Graham Colm Talk 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the reviewer. I read the instructions for a GA review, and they did not say "perfection required" nor "meets MOS in all respects, no matter how minute". Also, this is GA, not FA, so I expect to see room for improvement. Finally, there is a huge backlog of articles waiting for GA review, yet here my review is being criticized as not being equal to ... what? Not equal to the review some other editor might have written, if they had bothered to write it. Well, I did bother, and in anticipation of reading "thank you", I write "my pleasure". --Una Smith (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, no offense intended Una...I was just freaked out because of the 6 edits since May, so I made a note of it... Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I didn't think offense was intended, nor did I take any. However, I do want to raise a caution flag about alienating reviewers. Anyway, is 6 edits since May too many or too few? --Una Smith (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, probably too few....but my concern was that no one would address your concerns because no one was editing it!! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live with a cat that looks identical to this one. Time to move on, I think. ;-) Graham Colm Talk 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Applications of the Poliovirus

Would it be beneficial to add a section describing current useful applications of the virus? There is a published article from the Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology at Duke University in the PNAS (Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences) from December 2003. It describes research for a cancer treatment from a crippled strain of the virus. I haven't found more recent articles on this research but I thought it might be expanded with additional imput.[1] 70.177.81.27 (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A virus should not have a genus, species, and family. Viruses are not living creatures. Only living creatures have scientific names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sojoho09 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poliovirus doesn't just infect humans as reported in this article?

Humans have infected other apes and monkeys with polio. And Jane Goodall reported the Polio-like infection of the Gombe chimps as it happened.

Accidental exposure to infected laboratory workers has led to poliovirus infections of chimpanzees and gorillas since the 1940s (1). Poliovirus can infect not only our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) (2), but also more distantly related anthropoids like the colobus monkeys (e.g., Colobus abyssinicus kikuyuensis [=guereza]) (42). Antibodies and shed virus have also been found in recently imported animals (8), and some chimpanzees may act as symptomless carriers (2). Long-term research by Jane Goodall on wild Tanzanian chimpanzees documented the potential for transmission of poliovirus (or a similar virus) in free-ranging chimpanzee populations (43). Since no samples were collected, it is impossible to determine if the epidemic described by Goodall was part of a natural chimpanzee cycle or the result of introduction from local human populations or researchers. As poliovirus eradication efforts intensify, it may be useful to monitor virus prevalence in humans living near primate habitats.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/4/2/98-0202_article

Kilgh (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Section on Re-classification

The last paragraph in the section Origin and serotypes is confusing; I had to read it several times before it made sense to me. Since the family and genus did not change, couldn't that whole paragraph be stated as something like "In 2008 the species Poliovirus was renamed as Human Enterovirus C (under genus Enterovirus and family Picornaviridae) which includes the three known serotypes." Or am I still reading it wrong? Dfuerpo (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph regarding mutation rates and base/codon distributions

I've read the paragraph about mutation rate and base and codon distribution, in the "Origin and Serotypes" section. I can't understand what it is doing in that section. How does it relate to origin and/or serotypes? Mikiher (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Poliovirus. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poliovirus. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction of the Neanderthals

A possible theory for the extinction of the Neanderthal extinction was a pandemic[1] involving one or more viruses. Probably it was due to the Poliovirus, causative agent of poliomyelitis (commonly known as polio), is a human enterovirus and member of the family of Picornaviridae.[2]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bostrom2002 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Ryan KJ, Ray CG, eds. (2004). Sherris Medical Microbiology (4th ed.). McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-8385-8529-9.

Grammar: Spelling

Grammatically, Poliovirus should be 2 words, not 1: Polio Virus, like RNA Virus & Ebola Virus. Someone must have made a mistake by leaving out the space many years ago, it has become a scientific standard, & no one cared or dared enough to correct it.2600:1702:3790:1520:2D40:D0F0:9CE8:915B (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science

CAUSTIVE agent and mode of transmisson of polio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:1A00:B010:D035:CD60:ED52:8169:8825 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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