Talk:Structure and genome of HIV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
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! | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-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. |
|||
[edit] History of this article
This material was moved and reorganized from HIV#HIV structure and genome, which now contains a brief summary of the subject. See the history of HIV for changes prior to the move. ←Hob 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposals for further reorganization
- Currently, the major proteins that make up HIV are described briefly in the Structure section and then again in the subsections for individual genes. References to the proteins are linked to the genes that code for them. I think is confusing since it's not immediately apparent why clicking on "gp120" goes to "env" - and really, most of the information is about the proteins, not the genes. I suggest instead having subsections for each protein, and converting the list of genes into a simple bullet list that says things like "env: codes for the envelope proteins gp120 and gp41".
- The "genetic variability" section is currently redundant between this article and HIV. Either it should be removed from this article and replaced with a brief "see" link, or the section in the main article should be replaced with a summary and link. ←Hob 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- This should be under the main article, not here. Specific mutations in proteins could be discussed in this section though. --Bob 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- I removed
No two HIV genomes are the same, not even from the same person, causing some to speculate that HIV is a quasispecies of a virus.[1]
This was the second sentence of the article. I deleted it, since it does not correctly use the term quasispecies, and I don't have the time to correct it right now. "HIV" is NOT speculated to form a quasispecies, but rather, the many individual HIV virions or HIV populations within a given individual are sometimes refered to as quasispecies.
[edit] Citation
Can someone change the 1983 on the first line of the main article to 1981; I am unsure how to do citations and someone keeps changing it back to 1983 when the first cases were recorded on June 5th 1981.
Here is evidence, and I am sure that you will find plenty more all over the net and in lots of books:
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/timeline/hivtimeline.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethepirate66 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually 1983 is correct, 1981 was when the first cases of AIDS were noticed because of the opportunistic infections. The virus itself wasn't discovered until 1983. For the first few years no one knew what was causing it. Luc Montagnier and others in France PubMed, and Robert Gallo and others published at the same time here PubMed. The search for the cause is covered in And the Band Played On. I'll reword the intro sentence to make this more clear. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
