Talk:Rotavirus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check external links

	Rotavirus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is has been assigned a High-importance to the Viruses WikiProject.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
FA	This page has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: User:GrahamColm This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Archives
to Nov 2007 to March 2008 Arpil 2008 Discussion on English usage

[edit] Cross Immunity

Does immunity to one strain of the virus result in partial immunity to the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--GrahamColm^Talk 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends at great deal on how many generations the viruses are apart. Some strains could be completly diffrent from each other by now.Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For an RNA virus, rotaviruses are remarkably stable genetically. The mutation rate is low and the same serotypes have been circulating in humans and other animals for decades. If rotaviruses were highly mutable, (like HIV), control of rotavirus disease by vaccination would not be possible. (See Rotavirus Vaccine Program). GrahamColm^Talk 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is quite interesting. I didn't think that any RNA viruses were that stable. Of course I don't know as much about this as you so why am I talking anyway?Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk away, this is the Talk page. Poliovirus is a stable RNA virus, hence the vaccine being so effective, as is Hepatitis A virus, Rubella virus, Measles and Mumps. It is the "newer" RNA viruses such as HIV that are highly mutable and thus difficult to develop vaccines against. GrahamColm^Talk 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Stale topic, but hey...) Per the Baltimore Classification, there are several groups of RNA viruses. HIV is an RNA retrovirus, and it is the "retro" aspect, the reverse transcription by which the virus is transcribed into a chromosome of the host's DNA, that introduces so much variation in HIV. On the other hand, equine infectious anemia (EIA) is also a retrovirus, yet seems to be far less variable than HIV. And there is a vaccine for EIA, in use in China for decades and purported to be highly effective but (as far as I know) it is used nowhere else. In the United States, EIA has been the subject of a national control program since the 1970's. I don't know what GrahamColm had in mind by "newer" RNA viruses. Newer recognition? Newer evolutionary history? Quibbles about details aside, HIV probably does have a very recent evolutionary history, compared to most other viruses infecting humans, but usually that newness would confer low diversity. --Una Smith (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Focus?

Children are referenced at least 28 times in this article. I am not a child, nor do I have any. I am trying to determine whether or not this virus has caused the gastroenteritis I've suffered for the past week, and all I see is a single confusing blurb about the "adult version." I suggest a cleanup for this article either making it less child-centric, or a clarification pointing out that this virus is so uncommon in adults that adults are barely worth discussing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.221.99 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason children are mentioned 28 times is that viral infections that travel the fecal-oral route are far more common in young children who are prone to the sort of habits that carry fecal contamination to their mouth than adults are, and because it is an important cause of childhood malnutrition, disease, and death. General encyclopedia articles are not written in any way to assist in self-diagnosis of diseases, so no rewrite of this article will help with what you seek. --Blechnic (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between children and adults is not their hand washing habits, but the fact that adults are largely immune, having been already thoroughly infected when they were children. The article does try to make this point...I will look at it again. --Una Smith (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This point has come up before, in various forms; other contributors here may recall months ago someone wanting details about rotavirus infecting cruise ship passengers. Yes, the lead does say (by omission) that rotavirus is not a major cause in adults, but readers are missing that point. Only a tiny minority of readers bother to give feedback, so I regard feedback re any misunderstanding as important. Especially if I notice the same misunderstanding more than once. Subject experts can read text that, with elegant economy of words, conveys meaning by omission, but most encyclopedia readers are not subject experts. I think this particular omission is a problem for readers. How about this? --Una Smith (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• For It is the leading cause of severe diarrhoea among infants and young children.
• Use It is a minor cause of severe diarrhoea among adults and the leading cause among infants and young children.

• Una, How about putting something at the end of here:

However, with each infection, immunity develops, (and) subsequent infections are less severe and adults are rarely affected. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to:

However, with each infection, immunity develops, subsequent infections are less severe,^[1] and adults are rarely affected.^[2] GrahamColm^Talk 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)