Talk:Subtypes of HIV
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Subtypes of HIV.
|
Gorillas
[edit]Can someone stick up the info about the gorilla subtype that's been in the news lately? Far too technical for a non-expert to add. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I have built a new phylogenetic tree, including the Gorilla SIV genome and the new HIV-1 P genome. Contact me at btf@lanl.gov and I can help with a JPEG or other format image for this page. I have done a tiny bit of wiki editing, but it would be far easier if someone who understands the wiki image system etc could help me. Brian Foley, PhD HIV Databases —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontroversy (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is an exciting development, but it remains an anecdote for now. We should keep in mind that this is one sequence from one patient, and that the authors themselves acknowledge the possibility that SIVcpz is the ultimate source of this virus. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't a natural vaccine strain ever develop?
[edit]A very long time ago, people hoped to find a non-virulent strain of HIV [1] that would simply not cause symptoms; especially, one which after infecting cells would then protect them from superinfection with other strains, or at least, closely related strains. As a deliberate vaccine it wasn't a very viable idea because who would know if the vaccine was really a harmless strain, until many years later... but it always seemed possible that such a thing would arise naturally.
Yet here it is, 2010, and still no HIV equivalent of cowpox. Why didn't it happen? Wnt (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
mostly related
[edit]shouldn't encyclopaedic articles be written be people who know the difference between most related and mostly related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.119.179 (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
mutation levels
[edit]https://hivdb.stanford.edu/page/apobecs/
and
"After removing the above mentioned 130 mutations, we found the signature APOBEC-mediated mutation list contains 296 APOBEC mutations.
APOBEC context DRMs Among the positions in PR, RT, and IN for which >50% of amino acids represented a potential target, we identified 17 APOBEC context mutations were considered drug resistance mutations."
is the only thing I can see about amount of mutations - I am not saying the figures are wrong in the article - but the reference does not seem to show the figures claimed. CAN someone that can actually understand the database point to a reference that matches what is in the article - and if not THEN THIS IS original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hiv symptoms
[edit]i want to know HIV symptoms and if the person with it can affect the unborn persom 41.13.212.31 (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)