Talk:RNA virus

message: :*Anyone have a source for the following claim (2nd sentence in the entry): "For example, Hepatitis B virus is classified as an RNA virus, even though its genome is double-stranded DNA, because the genome is transcribed into RNA during replication." I was under the impression that Hep B was classified as a reverse transcriptase DNA virus. -- MarcoTolo 20:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for pointing that out - I also found the contrary to be true: (Sources:  and ) and will change the article accordingly -- Serephine / talk - 03:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HBV classified as an RNA virus?

message: I suggest adding a line to the initial paragraph to emphasise the importance of these viruses.
Notable human RNA viruses include SARS, Influenza and HCV. 
--TransControl 08:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As described in Virus classification, retroviruses like HIV are not (usually) included among the RNA viruses precisely because they violate that rule. The RNA world hypothesis suggests that they may be evolutionarily very distinct from regular RNA viruses. Sakkura 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of RNA viruses 

message: There is no reference for this suspicious statement:
:Retroviruses integrate a DNA intermediate of their RNA genome into the host genome, and therefore have a higher chance of correcting any mistakes in their genome thanks to the action of proof-reading DNA polymerases belonging to the host cell.
Any support for that?  If the error occurs during reverse transcription, host DNA repair mechanisms will have no effect because the DNA strands that get integrated will match.  I'll edit the statement and see how it sits.Scray (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes well spotted. Retroviruses have the best of both worlds. During their RNA phase they are highly mutable because of the error rate of RT. During the DNA phase their genomes are stable but errors made by the RT cannot be corrected. Favourable mutations naturally selected during the RT phase are stable in the DNA  form and reproduce as DNA with the host DNA. --GrahamColmTalk 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutation rates 

message: Page 97 of  does not say anything about classification, and papers like  see retroviruses as RNA viruses. Narayanese (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're asking about RNA viruses lacking a DNA intermediate?  Though I don't see where page 97 is cited in this respect (maybe I missed it), that reference does say (lines 3-4 in the second paragraph), "The absence of a DNA intermediate in the replication cycle of RNA viruses has, until recently...".  More to the point, the rewording of the first sentence is meant to highlight the classification of RNA viruses specifically as lacking a DNA intermediate.  The second sentence highlights this further, and the classification page reveals that the RNA viruses specifically lack a DNA intermediate.  Maybe I am missing your point?Scray (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that's the classification, then add a source that says so explicitly. Because I've seen many call retroviruses RNA viruses. Narayanese (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a relevant link to ICTV that shows the reverse-transcribing viruses clearly distinct from the RNA viruses.  Using Google Books and the search string "virus classification characteristics fields", I was also able to find similar classification in Fields Virology (Table on page 28).  I have not seen a current, reputable source that explicitly includes the retroviridae in a formal classification of RNA viruses.  Can you provide one?  In any event, ICTV seems to be the gold standard now.  We (as a community) need to get the relevant pages in sync.Scray (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the ICTV says so then I'm fine. Narayanese (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: MeSH includes them though, so I think I'll add something about them sometimes being included. Narayanese (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: Is a ribovirus the same as an RNA virus? The term doesn't seem to be used often (only 154 Google Scholar hits vs more than 30 thousand for "RNA virus", but I'm not sure if it is exactly the same or there's a subtle difference. --Itub (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ribovirus = any RNA virus that isn't a retrovirus (says ). So it's often a synonym. Narayanese (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, that was more or less what I had in mind. I've added a sentence to that effect to the article, but feel free to correct it or move it. I was looking for a quick definition and was a bit surprised that the word appeared nowhere on Wikipedia, so a brief mention here should help in case anyone else comes looking. --Itub (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ribovirus 

message: "Retroviruses (Group VI) have a single-stranded RNA genome but are generally not considered RNA viruses" -this page, bottom of replication section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus
"A retrovirus is an RNA virus"-first sentence of the first paragraph of the retrovirus page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus ...
should I complain here or in the retrovirus page(well, ask for clarification, not complain, per se)?
71.50.222.194 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  InterWiki discontinuity: Retroviruses are NOT RNA viruses??? 

message: An introductory paragraph that probably explained the distinction between ssRNA and dsRNA viruses seems to have been lost, and the Characteristics section now begins by further parsing ssRNA viruses without first explaining what they are. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[RNA_Virus#Characteristics]] has lost its lead 

message: I will be making a new page for the (-)ssRNA Viruses. Could I transfer the information under the "Group V—negative-sense ssRNA viruses" heading for the page? ReadingFrame25 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  (-)ssRNA Virus 

message: Substituted at 03:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The ICTV made changes to the negative stranded virus taxonomy in 2016. These have now been included in the page. Virion123 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy update

message: Hi all, I am a virologist and I use wiki a lot for quick referencing of unusual virus types.  I would love to help out writing about them.  In regards to this page, I find it somewhat pointless to just list names of different types of RNA viruses such as under contents #4, 5, and 6.  Perhaps there could be a link to a general taxonomy tree on a separate page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapefruits14 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Viruses generally don't behave well phylogenetically, given horizontal gene transfer and other phenomena that violate assumptions of phylogeny. Perhaps you just mean using a tree-like visual depicting one of the virus classification schemes? Any examples of what you intend? — soupvector (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of RNA viruses 

message: The section "Single-stranded RNA viruses and RNA Sense" talks only about RNA sense but does not have a single word about single-stranded RNA viruses, which I was looking for. It would be great to add this missing information so the title of the section is not misleading.
--Chimel31 (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-stranded RNA viruses 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Orthornavirae which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress