Talk:HHV Latency Associated Transcript

Deletion of Retracted Information
Shouldn't the information pertaining to the retracted journal article be deleted from the page? It seems like it has little to no merit if the paper was retracted, and therefore is baseless, misleading conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.69.207 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous reports
I removed this section from the article because it is just random info:


 * In five autopsied human cranial nerves, only 10% of infected neurons found to be positive for HSV-1 DNA were positive for HSV-1 LAT via in situ hybridization testing. K. Wang and colleagues reported on a comparison of laser-capture microdissection + real-time PCR for the HSV-1 gG sequence and the in situ hybridization test for HSV-1 LAT.  Their specimens were 970 human trigeminal ganglia nerves from 5 subjects at autopsy.

Too-Technical Articles
In my opinion, there should not be a category for articles which are too technical. Rather, there should be articles which are intentionally more technical, but they should have intros which point the reader to an overview topic that corresponds to the technical page. For example, HHV LAT could be the general page and HHV LAT (Technical) could be the deliberately technical page. Or, the technical page HHV LAT could begin with a template that contains a link to the section on HHV that is generally about LAT.

Any deliberately technical page should be required to reference a generalist page. Doesn't that sound more like it would advance civilization than demanding 'dumbed down' content? The current standard of 'too technical' implies that the wikipedia can only, well, get technical to a limited extent. ManVhv 06:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Discussion
The style in most biology references is a hierarchy of headings over references. See, e.g., Molecular Biology of the Cell.

Apparently, some Wikipedia style afficianados dislike the style of headings in a hierarchy over paragraphs with references. However, this style is a good style and I contend it should be used in the domain of technical articles in biology.

To date, editors have made snarky comments on the subject, and little progress has been made in reaching agreement. I'm going to contribute in the accepted style.

I think if people who clearly have a real interest in technical biology, such as User:Zephyrus, want to weigh in, that would be reasonable. But I'm not really concerned with the opinions of English mavens and admirers; this is a technical article, on purpose.

What would be really great would be help making contributions that have new words in them.

ManVhv 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered on User talk page. Edit summaries are there to say what you did with the edit, and why you did it. Mine said "Way too many headings, removing TOC for legibility". I'm not entirely certain what part of the comment you took to be snarky, especially given that one of your earlier reversions was appended simply with "I disagree, dude" with no real reason. Technical articles are fine, and note that I've not disagreed with the content of the article, merely in its layout &mdash; all articles should follow the Manual of Style and aspire to be written in clear and legible prose. I can't help much with the content given the highly technical nature of the subject, but I can at least point out where it can be improved as an encyclopaedic article. Remember: WP:OWN GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Had some time, so actually carried out what I'd hoped would be achieved by another editor when I added the cleanup tag. The context and relevance of the "miscellaneous reports" need to be stated if they're to be moved into the main prose. I've left them alone for now. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  21:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the time. Apparently, wikipedia can't handle this level of technical information, and it should be deleted.  Maybe someday there will be a wikitext that is able to handle such erudite and clasical style.
 * As far as I can see, I'm the only person willing to contribute actual content to this topic, and you've gotten rid of me. Best to delete this topic because it is incomplete, and now utterly disgusting to look at.
 * ManVhv 00:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, the edits you 'contributed' while you 'had some time' introduced factual errors. You also seem pretty interested in removing the Chicken Pox example.  I think I am starting to see the problem here.  Earlier, it should have been a tip-off when you were protesting without me bringing this topic up: you have a psychological issue with Herpes and people who have it.  My guess is that you aren't comfortable with the fact that Chicken Pox is also a Herpes Virus, and has major genetic identity with Gential Herpes and Cold Sores.  Some of the changes you made reveal that you have ideas which are common misconceptions about herpes.  (E.g., changed 'may' proceed to 'will' proceed.  Most people who get a herpes PI do not get a latent infection, actually.) ManVhv 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're reading things into my edits that I didn't put in there. My only interest in the article was in trying to bring the style in line with Wikipedia guidelines, the topic itself could just as well have been baked beans for my personal stake in it. I removed the chicken pox example because it didn't seem overly relevant. This is a page on a transcript of DNA, not the herpes virus. If you can find a way to work it into the text without it seeming a bit non-sequitur, you're more than welcome to. I'd stated on your talk page that I wasn't an expert in this field, but given that you'd removed my previous cleanup tag without explanation and you had advised me to have a go, I did. Providing a layman's view of what the article appeared to say should at least give you an idea of what areas need to be corrected should you choose to rewrite it. Try to remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration, not everyone has to know everything to contribute. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  01:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You introduced at least 3 factual errors with your edits. ManVhv 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Human CTCF protein may regulate LAT expression
In this subsection the author states that CTCF may alter the chromatin state of the DNA by acetylation of the DNA. Although I haven't read the article to which is refered to, I think that is unlikely. 1. First of all, the DNA itself is not acetylated, but the histone proteins which bind to it are. 2. CTCF is a chromatin insulator (enhancer blocking) and plays a role in establishing and maintenance of DNA methylation patterns (as far as I know it does not have an acetylating activity). DNA methylation may affect histone modifications (such as acetylation), so if CTCF has an effect on histone acetylation, it is likely that the effect is indirect.

I agree that this article is too technical, and without proper introduction useless.