Talk:Bovine papillomavirus

Untitled

Work in progress. In particular, I intend to expand the 'Associations with cancer' & 'Vaccines' sections Espresso Addict 04:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

These sections now expanded. Espresso Addict 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BPV in hamsters?!

Even as a work in progress this article is great! I'm a papillomavirus aficionado and I learned new things. Is there a reference for BPV-1 and -2 infection of rabbits, hamsters and mice? Retroid 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've admired your sterling work on the HPV and papillomavirus pages. This is on my TBD list to expand, but I keep being distracted by easier tasks.

I don't have a direct ref to the rabbits &c infection; it's mentioned in passing in the Papillomavirus chapters of both Fields Virology (3rd edn) (Shah & Howley) and Richman et al. Clinical Virology (2nd edn) (Bonnez). The latter references the review Leigh IM et al. Role of human papillomaviruses in cutaneous and oral manifestations of immunosuppression. J AIDS (1999) 21: S49-S57 (PMID 10430219), but I don't have access to that to get hold of the primary reference. Espresso Addict 23:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll shove in a reference to Fields as a cover all for now, and if I unearth the original source change it. Espresso Addict 23:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Found (and added) one ref for hamsters and mice vs unknown BPV (probably BPV1). I guess in a way it's not totally unexpected. Now that I read a little about it I'm remembering that compared to other PVs, BPV1 is basically freakish in its breadth of tropism. I wonder why the BPV vs mouse challenge technique never caught on.

I've expanded these sections now, and added another ref in hamsters that's available free online. Espresso Addict 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback and suggestions

• Lead is a bit short and doesn't summarise the article. Try to touch on all of the subject headings. Lead was also a bit technical. This is the most important part of the article to make simple - aim for a New Scientist level of prose. If you have to sacrifice some precision to do this, that's OK this is a summary that shouldn't mislead but should be easily readable and completely clear.

• History would be interesting and more accessible for general reader - who first identified the disease and when, who identified the agent and when and how this fitted into the realisation that viruses could cause cancer. Was this one of the first oncoviruses or did it contribute much to the investigation of this effect?

• Nothing on mechanism. How does the virus cause cancer? This is another area where the general public will be interested. I'd try to pitch this at about the level I used in Influenza#Microbiology.

• Identify articles that deal with the section's topics in more detail and use the {{further|[[Topic page]]}} to highlight these at the top of each section.

• PMID's for references this tool makes creating refs really easy. Just put in the PMID and it spits out a formatted reference.

Hope these suggestions help! Tim Vickers 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very useful comments, Tim! I agree the article is probably currently pitched a little on the technical side. I'll try to dig out some references on the history; I don't have anything citeable to hand. I don't know how many of the details of the cancer mechanism have been proved, but there's certainly more that could be added on that topic. Regards, Espresso Addict 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre infobox

@NessieVL: I fail to see how this infobox is an improvement. The article formatting is entirely destroyed. Please fix or restore, or I will simply remove the infobox altogether; it no longer contains any useful information, unlike the old version. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: that seems oddly confrontational. In any event, saying ‘restore’ implies that the old version had correct information. Bovine papillomaviruses are a polyphyletic group, they are not a clade. Also, changing an automated taxobox to a manual one is against well-established consensus. What constructive changes can you think of? --Nessie (📥) 19:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@NessieVL:Removing the "infobox" altogether? It does not offer any useful information in this article, and it entirely breaks the formatting. As BPVs are polyphyletic, a single taxobox does not seem appropriate. Your ping did not go though, by the way. That's the second time I've noticed this. Do you realise that you need to sign at the same time as you place the ping? Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I missed my sig. Another option is to change the |excludes= to "All other species and genera in Firstpapillomavirinae", if that helps. I know the documentation for {{Paraphyletic group}} is lacking, but its talk page has some guidance for other options. Also, the members of Category:Paraphyletic groups ( 154 ) have a few different implementations as well. --Nessie (📥) 19:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa" is still completely incorrect, as none of these viruses infects cattle! It does at least fix the formatting. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)