Talk:Hepatitis C virus

message: Harvey Alter, Michael Houghton en Charles Rice get the 2020 Nobel Prize for Medicine for the discovery of the HCV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:5084:DF00:5C96:AD9F:7496:9358 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel 2020

message: How hardy is it outside the body/liver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblakesx (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In dried blood plasma, the answer is "at least 16 hours", but less than 4 days - according to this study (PDF). -- MarcoTolo 01:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifespan of HCV

message: Discussion of vaccination here is a little weak, and should perhaps be relocated to hepatitis C.
The statement that treatment with interferon is "palliative" does not belong under "vaccination", and is just plain incorrect.  Sustained virologic response (SVR) happens in half (for genotype 1) or nearly 80% (genotypes 2 and 3), and is essentially a cure of the infection.  Treatment is discussed in the hepatitis c article, so I removed it from this one.  Scray (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccination 

message: I notice that the image of the virus ( "Em flavavirus-HCV samp1c.jpg" ) is of uncertain origin.  It was uploaded in November 2007 by user < PhD Dre >, but he or she did not indicate where the image came from.  was it his or her own scientific research?  was it published?  if so, where is the citation for a scientific publication?  I also note that < PhD Dre > has some, um, unhappy comments on his user page, which s/he concludes by saying "Goodbye, forever."  Makes me kinda nervous.  If a source - published or unpublished - for this image cannot be established, perhaps it should be considered for deletion.  After all, almost *any* enveloped virion - for example, HIV or Hepatitis B - will look kind of like this image.  In the early part of my career I was a molecular virologist working on HCV, and our lab tried (but failed)  to get an EM of the virus.  I believe that subsequently images *have* been obtained and published, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the provenance of this particular image is undocumented.  Any other thoughts? - lanephil, 2/25/08   Lanephil (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about origin of electron micrograph image of hepatitis c virus?  

message: The effort is obvious and appreciated, but extrapolation from other viruses is not valid.  What is the evidence that there is a "protein shell" or that it is icosahedral?  What is the evidence that there is an RNA core surrounded by protein (rather than intermingling of RNA and protein)?  Without such evidence, the text and the new image are misleading.  I'll wait a little to see if there's a reply before being bold.Scray (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of HCV virion 

message: Transmission?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.161.31 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Hepatitis_c#Transmission - more relevant to the disease than the virus.  Scray (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmission? 

message: Isn't this diagram about 15 years out of date? Where's p7 between E2 and NS2? I'll try to find/make a better diagram if I have time Arkady darrell (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome diagram showing the proteins 

message: I can't find anything stating whether the entire Hep C virus has ever been isolated and grown in culture. I don't think it has, but we should say so in either case. There is a 2007 Seattle Times article here, but it says "Scientists injected the cells into a culture with genetic material from the virus." I wonder if this is the same cDNA snippet of viral code found in 1989. Also, the article says that the "the next step in the research is to see whether laboratory animals can be infected with the laboratory-grown viruses." I think the author probably meant "laboratory-engineered", but regardless they apparently are still trying to meet at least that postulate. We might put this in the article as an update, but we have to be clear about what "genetic material" means. Any comments? BruceSwanson (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , "Soon after cloning of the HCV genome in 1989, it was reported by a number of groups that primary human and chimpanzee hepatocytes could be infected with HCV-positive patient serum" and "full-length functional clones" are regularly used in vitro and have been "found to be infectious and to convey disease in chimpanzees after intrahepatic inoculation". I think it's safe to say that Hep C would be considered 'isolated and grown in culture' by any reasonable virologist. This is probably a useful review to use in the article. — Scientizzle 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bruce Swanson is performing original research, which leads him to the position that HCV is an engineered, artificial entity. This position is not supported by the scientific literature and has no place in a Wikipedia article. I invite Bruce Swanson to consider moving his apparent virus denialism to more appropriate venues. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Seattle Times is not a scientific journal, making your second-hand interpretation of an oversimplified, popular secondary source completely irrelevant.  We use medically reliable sources, not newspapers, for verifying scientific claims.  What is OR is your step from "genetic material" to "I wonder if..."  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you know what review article is, Bruce?  is a literature review (clear from the article content--of which I read a decent fraction--as well as the PubMed listing), thus a secondary source. That article is a collection and evaluation of a large number of peer-reviewed publications. It's exactly the type of source WP:MEDRS recommends, which is exactly why I did... — Scientizzle 17:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, literature reviews from peer-reviewed academic publications are the gold standard of reliable sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that comment reveals no understanding of WP:MEDRS.   is certainly a far better source than any news article ever could be.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hep C isolation and culture

message: Though there are lots of images, which is great, the dearth of text means you end up with a lot of whitespace; stacking all the images in the lead right after the infobox removes this whitespace, but also means the images aren't linked to a specific section.  I'm editing using IE, which sucks, but we should ideally set up the page to be equally readable for all browsers.  I'm not saying my solution is perfect (far from it!) but it's one option.  What do people think?
I've also converted the table on protein structures to simple prose - it was fighting with the image to no good end, and I can't really see a reason to have such a limited amount of information in a table when prose works just as well.  I'm not wedded to the changes, so feel free to edit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much better than it did! Hopefully, I will get round to expanding the text this weekend. I have been planning to do this for a long time but real life keeps getting in the way. I have an excellent collection of recently published textbooks and review articles. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and whitespace 

message: Scray, Bartenschlater & Lohmann does mention lymphotropism, in the virus replication section:
". Apart from liver cells, there is strong evidence that HCV can also replicate in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) both in vivo and ex vivo or in experimentally infected B- and T-cell lines (see below). Such a lymphotropism may account for the numerous immunological disorders, in particular type II and type III cryoglobulinaemia, observed in more than 50% of chronic hepatitis C patients (Esteban et al., 1998 )."
Of course, it is ten years old and could be simply out of date.  Also, is there now a (convenient) animal model for modelling HCV?  Might explain the increase in knowledge about HCV since 2000.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not state that the paper does not mention lymphotropism, nor did I remove all mention of "lymphotropism"; indeed, I searched the article for "lympho" and the section you quote above is one of the ones I found.  What I said in the edit summary was, "the cited reference makes no statement to suggest that lymphotropism is a mechanism of delivery of HCV to hepatocytes", hence I removed, "...using lymphotropism to reach the liver..."; do you see support for that claim in the cited reference?  If so, i apologize for missing it.  -- Scray (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my mistake.  That was found in the text before the latest round of editing and I AGF that it was valid.  Makes sense, but you're correct it's not in the article I can see.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lymphotropism

message: I do not think recent additions to this article are helpful in their current form. Most readers are not going to bother with any of this. They are a random collection of stats, mainly from primary sources, and no attention has been paid to logical flow and engaging prose. A lot of this could go into a table, but I doubt that much is needed at all. This is an encyclopedia – not an esoteric virology catalogue. Graham Colm (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that much of the recent changes adds what appears to be random facts. If it can be sourced to a good secondary source, than we can consider keeping it, otherwise it needs to be removed per WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm contemplating reverting. No one wants to read this. Graham Colm (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: might find this reference/review of interest for the replication section, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: review