Talk:CCR5

message: There are several commercial providers of CCR5 delta 32 tests. Should we mention them in this article?Kevin143 (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for not posting here too.  I was the one who deleted the mention of a specific company name.  As I noted in the edit comment, I think it violates the WP:LINKSPAM policy.  (The slippery slope argument that then every other company who does this testing, or any other testing, will find it relevant to put links on this and other pages.)  I've seen similar links removed elsewhere (and removed several myself), but I'll happily solicit opinion from a more experienced third-party.  Suggestions?  Otherwise, we could just post on Wikipedia_talk:SPAM.  Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you're right here, I hadn't read the linkspam policy for years. How about a mention that commercial companies sell tests for these mutations, with no links or names of the providers? Kevin143 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree that the fact that commercial companies exist to do this testing is noteworthy.  I left the first half of your sentence in there.  It now reads Several commercial testing companies offer tests for CCR5-Δ32.  Did you want to modify that further?  AndrewGNF (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's great, looks good. Kevin143 (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of CCR5-D32 test

message: I don't think every possible mutation of a gene should have its own page. This would fit perfectly in the CCR5 article. --WS 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Bob 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Delta mutation" I don't believe is the proper terminology. The delta symbol simply stands for a "deletion" at the 32bp segment. Nagelfar 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of CCR5-D32

message: Another company FamilyTreeDNA provides CCR5-D32 genetic testing to individual clients for about $30.
At present this test can only be ordered as a supplementary test... that is, one must already have had a DNA sample
analysed by FamilyTreeDNA, whose primary business is genealogical DNA tests.  
I'm just wondering if this also warrants being mentioned on the main page for CCR5, in addition to the hivmirror.com company?
-- Dapike 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum to promote commercial organisations. Any link to such a commercial site will be deleted. --Bob (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is pertinent to the article at hand there's no reason why such a link should not be transcluded. As long as there's no favoritism (meaning it isn't something readily available from many vendors where fair referenced inclusion would be unwieldy). 67.5.156.5 (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd researched this a couple of years ago for friends and at that time was told that these tests were no longer available and the issue was tied up in patent litigation.  I haven't heard whether any labs will offer or currently offer the CCR5 test again.  I was tested in 2000 at the tail end of a research study at UCLA.  I suggest you contact HIV research facilities for leads.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBliss (talk • contribs) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Companies that test for CCR5-D32

message: I think it's worthwhile to have a separate article for CCR5-D32. As a general reader, I saw "Delta 32 deletion" mentioned in the popular press and searched Wikipedia without success for an article with that name.
An hour later, I finally found this article not through a search but through browsing on the broader topic. The CCR5-D32 sub-section is buried far down the page, and its title is different from the way I had seen Delta-32 referred to in the popular press.
A separate article could be given its own lead with a clearer summary of variant nomenclature, and also would be a more suitable target for redirects.
In general, I hope that professionals writing articles on this topic will remember that they are writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook -- that is, the audience is an educated general reader without broad knowledge of medical terminology. The articles in this series have all been, for me, quite difficult to glean meaningful information from.
Dybryd 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an excellent idea. cyclosarin 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true. Plus, I couldn't get an actual conclusion out of that text: is delta 32 great news or useless? 190.31.3.6 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article for CCR5-D32

message: Citation number 14 links to a WSJ article that is no longer valid.  It may be important to update the link, if the original article can be found.  OTherwise, it may need removal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.104.165 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a stray character in the link (it took two seconds of googling to figure this out). Boghog (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Reference

message: The picture of the protein in the infobox is CD44 and not CCR5. No clue how to change it, though. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 22:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I figured out how to edit the PBB infobox template to remove the pic of CD44 and replace it with the pic of CCR5 (which was further down in the article). SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Someone reverted the change. I'll change it back from CD44 to CCR5 again... SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 00:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I think GeneAtlas is wrong too, images have CD44 in their names. `a5b (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of wrong protein in info box 

message: The article on CC chemokine receptors says CCR5's ligands include CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL8, CCL11, CCL13, CCL14, CCL16  (overview table) .  The same info is included in that article's section on CCR5, this time with references  "This receptor has several CC chemokine ligands including CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL11, CCL13, CCL14 and CCL16.[4][5][12][13]"
This article (CCR5) has a different, shorter list, also with references ("CCR5's cognate ligands include CCL3, CCL4 (also known as MIP 1α and 1β, respectively), and CCL3L1.[14][15] CCR5 furthermore interacts with CCL5 (a chemotactic cytokine protein also known as RANTES).[14][16][17]").  
I don't know which list is more correct (or more complete).  It would be useful if someone knowledgeable in this area looked at this and updated whichever article is wrong/incomplete?
DlronW (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  discrepancy between information in this article and the article on CC chemokine receptors 

message: Quote: "Vikings were later replaced by the Varangians in Russia, which may have contributed to the observed east-to-west cline of allele frequency.[45][47]"
According to Varangians, they were the same people. Elias (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikings "replaced by" Varangians