Talk:Spike protein

message: So is the term peplomer to be considered current terminology or not? If it is not, then that fact should be mentioned early, not after (pointlessly) describing specific usage. Also, if it is not currently used, what are the current terms? This is a technical term, for which we are reading the definition precisely because someone (on another page) used it. We then read the definition and examples of its usage, and are then told we should not use it. Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with this helpful suggestion, due to the lack of an approved term! Aboctok (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just searched a few databases and came up with several recent-year hits for the term. It's still in use. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)  15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you did not give LINKS, so your claim is useless. I have never before heard the term peplomer in classical virology. We all call the viral glykoproteins vp. But in veterinary medicine, they seem to use the word 'peplomer', which I have no idea for why especially the veterinary medicine affiliados use that word! 80.121.41.72 (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should systematically search for the origin of the word itself, which textbook about virology mentions it. 84.113.184.113 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: Can we get a history of the term? Peplo is a peculiar word, mer is more common (oligomer). And when it was used last. 84.113.184.113 (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: Some of the Covid-19 vaccines target the Spike protein, how specific is this to the Virus? Is it shared by other symbiotic, pathogenic and beneficial viri?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.214.173 (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Peplomer →  – The article points this out (without a citation), but this really isn't the most common term in current use. Even limiting searches to 2018 or before, to exclude the flood of covid-related papers, Google Scholar gives 17,400 hits for the phrase "spike protein", compared to 2470 for peplomer, mostly older papers. Of course, if this really were the current common term for the proteins in question, the past year should have produced hundreds of peplomer papers, but there's only 4. Similarly, see the use-by-year graphs in pubmed for peplomer and "spike protein". And the overwhelming majority of related media coverage on topics like SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccines, antigens, etc, has used "spike", making it the common name outside the scientific literature as well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 June 2021 

message: Adenovirus always has low level toxicity  as do  Solid lipid nanoparticles. The Reuters article has a straw man argument. It exchanges claims of cytotoxicity with claims about organ toxicity and general toxicity. Specifically to answer well established cytotoxicity (see prior links) it cites an article on organ toxicity and the opinions of 2 public health scientists. No they are not experts on cytotoxicity, the effects of RNA overexpression, foreign lipid incorporation etc. 
Every fact checker seems to interchange toxicity and cytoxicity (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/16/youtube-videos/no-sign-covid-19-vaccines-spike-protein-toxic-or-c/) alot of disinformation. Honest propaganda would leave it at its not toxic to organs and ignore the cytotoxicity for now. An honest encyclopedia would discuss both. Best to just erase the article about spike proteins and society because its about nonspecialists criticizing specialists.68.134.68.237 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice rewrite posted. 68.134.68.237 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claim of no cytotoxicity of the vaccines is false