Talk:Monkeypox virus

Untited
Hello to all who visit hereafter!


 * I am an AP Biology student who is currently taking this virus stub under my wing in the hopes that it will eventually reach "Good Article" status. I welcome and encourage all who visit to contribute/criticize, albeit constructively, as they see fit. Please, if you see ANYTHING that you think should be changed than by all means let me know! I am completely open to suggestions and greatly thankful for any help that might come from the Wikipedia community.


 * My end goal, as noted earlier, is to nominate and pass this article to "GA" standing sometime before June 6th, 2009. While it will be a difficult road ahead, I hope those of you who took the time to read this will understand my undertaking and seek to help me expand and improve Wikipedia.

Thank you for reading, and please comment/criticize!--FoodPuma (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yo 👋 we are students (3 of us) at the University of Georgia that are doing the same, but as a class requirement. Not entirely sure how thorough we are going to be. ICapt.NemoI (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Just wanted to suggest that the Monkeypox Disease be merged into the Monkeypox Virus page. Being that the Monkeypox Virus page in-and-of-itself is not justifiable as anymore than a stub, and that the Monkeypox Virus is the cause of the Disease, it makes sense to include the Disease under the main Monkeypox Virus page.

Please leave your thoughts and feelings on this as I feel merging the two topics into one would greatly improve their capability to assist Wikipedia users by condensing information into one place.--FoodPuma (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at it further, I realized that merging the Monkeypox Virus page into the Monkeypox page would ultimatly make more sense. If you agree than please respond--FoodPuma (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge: The virus & the disease are distinct entities. More & more is learned of each all the time. (I should know, I work in the field!) If merged, I think they would eventually need to be separated again. 140.139.35.250 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that monkeypox and monkeypox virus are distinct entities and it is less confusing for readers to have a separation. When I want to read more about the virology I’ll read about monkeypox virus and when I’m interested in the disease (whose name may change) I’ll read about monkeypox.
 * I find the current situation with Japanese encephalitis merging the disease and ætiological agent a less than ideal compromise. Gary 21:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post article
Just wanted to call attention to a feature article from the WP on this subject that could serve other editors: here.

73.152.131.12 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Monkeypox.gif

Merge proposal 2022
The Monkeypox Virus and the Monkeypox pages should be merged in my opinion, much like the proposal a decade ago. While in some cases the division between disease and causative agent is useful (for instance Meningococcal being split from Meningitis, because other causative agents exist too), the only causative agent for Monkeypox is the Monkeypox Virus. Furthermore, with the natural zoonotic reservoir of the virus unidentified we are largely absent in discussion of the virus in other animals, the pages only really note that it's thought to have a zoonotic origin, and that it can be spread by a couple of other animals.

Additionally, the similarity of the page names is a source of confusion for non-experts, I do appreciate we have disambiguation pages but those are an imperfect solution, and we should bear in mind the possible confusion from highly similarly named pages.

I propose a merge of the pages, with a section dedicated to the nature of the virus outside of its infection itself.

If at some future point the pages need to be split off again due to some new development, so be it, but at present it this does not seem to be the case, and an argument about hypothetical future developments seems silly because Wikipedia doesn't work to a deadline.

The 2022 epidemic page should remain its own page however.

Please feel free to add your thoughts below. 5.151.23.56 (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: MIBO 3500 Introduction to Microbiology
— Assignment last updated by Jmoyang58 (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Virology 2022
— Assignment last updated by FloeEdge (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Coatrack section tag
The sections "signs and symptoms", "prevention" and "treatment" are about the disease monkeypox rather than the virus (i.e. diseases have symptoms, prevention techniques, not viruses per se). It may be worth condensing these subsections into one single smaller section. For now I have put them all under one section "Monkeypox" and tagged with Coatrack section so that it can be discussed here. Thanks. ArcMachaon (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Page move
User:Rreagan007, renaming the page was premature. The WHO do not name viruses or change their names. This is the responsibility of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses who have not acted. See. Graham Beards (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Moved. Treating this as a TR because consistency does not always override actual names found in reliable sources. If any editor thinks consistency is still more important, then they should consider a name change here to be controversial and open a fresh move request at any time. Thanks and kudos to the nom and other editors for your input; everyone stay healthy!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Mpox virus → Monkeypox virus – This page should be moved back to Monkeypox virus. Virus name changes are directed by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses who have not changed the name of the genus. The move was not discussed and there is a re-direct. Graham Beards (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closer's note
Have checked the most recent document from the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses dated 1 November 2022, and the species is still named "monkeypox virus". That is its official name and possibly still its common name.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 16:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ICTV has recently adopted the system of binomial nomenclature (see the proposal and Article 3.21 of the nomenclatural code) used for centuries for other species, where the name of a species is exactly two words and the first word is the name of the genus. Previously the names of virus species could be any number of words and didn't necessarily include the name of the genus (and when the name of the genus was included it was the usually the last word in the species name). So far, few species have been renamed to the new standards, but essentially every virus species will be renamed in the coming years. Assuming the circumscription of the genus doesn't change, Monkeypox virus will be renamed to something starting with Orthopoxvirus. Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged and thank you editor ! We can look forward to that time when it becomes the official name and, ultimately, the common name.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 17:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite there being still no updates on the ICTV taxonomy, "Orthopoxvirus simiae" now returns a surprisingly non-zero amount of search results. It seems to mainly have acceptance in German-speaking circles. Artoria2e5 🌉 07:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no ICTV release for 2023 (the first time since 2010 that there was no release). My assumption is that the release was deferred until all species had been renamed with binomials. Apparently that has been accomplished, and I expect there will be a fully binomial 2024 release around July. Plantdrew (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Need for general update and better/more citations
I think this page needs thorough review and revision. Since the 2022 global outbreak, many reliable sources have been updated (e.g. WHO, CDC, Europa) and there has been new research and reviews which deserves to be included. Examples where the page is unsatisfactory: There are other places where it's not good. Please can editors review recent reliable sources and update the page to match. Bob (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Research section contains no sources and does not contain any useful information
 * Transmission section says "prolonged face to face contact is required " - this is unsourced and inconsistent with reliable sources
 * Repeated references to West Africa clade and Central Africa clade. Since August 2022 these names are no longer in use so they should be replaced (other than maybe a single historical note)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2024
Matusotruba (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Change heading "Immune system interaction" to "Immunological parameter of infection".

Then delete Pox viruses have mechanisms to evade the hosts' innate and adaptive immune systems. Viral proteins, expressed by infected cells, employ multiple approaches to limit immune system activity; including binding to, and preventing activation of proteins within the host's immune system, and preventing infected cells from dying to enable them to continue replicating the monkey pox virus. and add

From an immunological perspective, Monkeypox virus (MPXV) is an infection caused by a DNA virus belonging to the Orthopoxvirus family. Transmission occurs through direct contact with infected animals or humans, where the virus binds to cell surface saccharides (glycosaminoglycans) and enters cells via endocytosis. Despite its initial identification in Denmark in 1958, the immune response to this virus remains poorly characterized. Genomic analysis has shed light on the similarities between MPXV and Vaccinia virus, revealing a 92% nucleotide and 88% protein sequence similarity, particularly in immunologically significant proteins, thereby suggesting the presence of numerous shared immune epitopes

The virus infiltrates epithelial cells, fibroblasts, and various immune cells including macrophages, monocytes, dendritic cells, and B or T-cells. Innate immune cells serve as the primary responders to viral infections with macrophages and dendritic cells being particularly important, as they facilitate virus dissemination by migrating to lymph nodes, where the virus replicates. This is followed by viral infection of human epidermal keratinocytes, as observed in vaccinia virus infections and induction of strong immunoregulatory cytokine production.

Natural killer cells, crucial components of innate immunity, undergo significant expansion during poxvirus infections, though their migratory and functional capacity can be impaired. Furthermore, they play a protective role in controlling viral load, as demonstrated in mouse models with IL-15 treatment IL-15 increased the numbers of IFNγ-secreting natural killer cells and CD8+ T cells leading to the protective immunity in CAST/EiJ mice against lethal dose of MPXV infection. Interestingly, natural killer cells are also involved in controlling other orthopoxvirus infections in mice, suggesting a conserved mechanism across species. Despite these insights, much remains unknown regarding the roles of various innate immune cells during human MPXV infection, highlighting the need for further research.

Endocytosed virus triggers innate immune responses via cytoplasmic DNA-sensing mechanisms including cGAS-STING pathway and Toll-like receptor (TLR) 9. Recognition of the virus in the cytoplasm leads to the activation Interferon regulatory factors (IRF) regulating transcription of interferons and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signaling pathways producing other inflammatory cytokines. Production of dsRNA as the intermediates of viral replication activates protein kinase R (PKR) inhibiting protein translation of viral and cellular proteins via phosphorylation of eukaryotic initiation factor 2α (eIF2α).

B cells and antibodies play a crucial role in combating poxviruses, with the type and magnitude of response influencing disease severity and vaccine effectiveness. Patients with moderate/severe disease often exhibit reduced anti-orthopoxvirus IgG responses, suggesting a correlation between antibody levels and disease severity. An IgG-only response may indicate robust cross-protective memory B cells, while an IgM response could point out less effective primary immunity. Therefore, IgM responses might serve as a biomarker for disease severity, and identify vaccine candidates for protection.

T-cells play an importnant role in fighting poxvirus infections, especially CD4+ T cells, which help activate and differentiate memory B cells. Notably, vaccinia virus-specific CD4+ T cells have been shown to persist long-term and produce cytokines upon stimulation. In contrast, CD4+ T cell deficiency can lead to severe MPXV infection, particularly in individuals with compromised immune systems. CD8+ T cells, on the other hand, directly target infected cells, providing protection against viral spread and lethal infections. Despite the potential of T cell responses, smallpox vaccination may not confer robust immunity against MPXV, as evidenced by the absence of detectable T cell responses in some vaccinated individuals who were consequently infected with MPXV.

Since there is no treatment developed to treat MPXV disease and the mathematical model estimated a higher risk of contact spreading because of the limited herd immunity, pre-exposure profylaxis by a cross-protecting small-pox vaccine (currently available as a MPXV vaccine under the name IMVANEX) is highly recommended. Its efficacy is likely attributed to the comparable humoral immune repsonses and recognizing different yet core set of poxvirus antigens mentioned earlier.

This suggestion can be further supported by the study published in 2023 quantifying neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in sera from control, MPXV-infected, and modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA)-vaccinated individuals. 28-days after infection with MPXV, anti-MVA and -MPXV NAbs were observed in 94% and 82% of individuals, respectively Recipients recieving 2 doses of IMVANEX elicited anti-MVA and -MPXV NAbs in 92% and 56% of vaccinated individuals, respectively, and interestingly individuals born before 1980 vaccinated by a smallpox vaccine had increased levels of neutralizing antibodies against MPXV than younger individuals born after this year likely attributed to the prior smallpox vaccination recieved until 1980 and memory B-cell reactivation and antibody production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matusotruba (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Matusotruba
 * First of all, thanks for you interest in this article. Your proposed edit shows that you have both enthusiasm and expertise, and that's great. Wikipedia needs you.
 * I'm not ging to add your edit in its present form, for a number of reasons:
 * First of all, it's too long. It will increase the byte count of the article by about 50% and that's an indication either that the article is a stub (which it isn't) or that undue weight is being given to a particular subsection.
 * Delving into your edit, it seems to me to be too technical for the Wikipedia target audience. There's guidance on this in the Manual of Style under WP:TECHNICAL and WP:NOTATEXTBOOK
 * Third, this looks as if it might be the product of original research. You've used sentences containing words like "might", "likely" and "suggestion" which indicate a personal opinion rather that generally accepted scientific consensus. In general, Wikipedia editors are encourage to cite reliable secondary sources of information (in this case, probably widely available textbooks or widely cited reviews) rather than strike out on their own. Please checkout WP:SOURCES and WP:No original research for a full explanation.
 * Fourth, although you have plenty of citations, some sentences are uncited - again, a suggestion that you are straying from established consensus.
 * Please consider whether the section which you are trying to replace or beef up is significantly deficient in information as far as the general reader is concerned. It may be sufficient just to add a sentence or two, or to update the wording and citations without any significant change to the length.
 * My advice to you, as a novice editor - stick to minor tweaks for the time being, and watch what other editors are doing, both right and wrong, until you have a better feel for the Wikipedia environment.
 * Many thanks, again. Bob (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert thank you, for such an advanced explanation to the edit I cerated. To be very honest I made as a part of my assignment at Charles University in Prague I am studying, that's why it's techniccal and it needs to be at least 5000 bytes which is the reason why its this long. I can divide the text into subsections it that would help and try to replace suggestions with facts. 2A00:102B:5000:7AE8:593C:4FFB:3D80:C046 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I  agree with Bob. The text is way too technical and it is not written in an encyclopedic style. For example we avoid padding like "This suggestion can be further supported by the study" and editorialising words such as "interestingly" and "furthermore". Also the citation style is wrong, here we put them after punctuation, and they contain formatting errors (see the reference list below). And there are several spelling mistakes. Please don't be discouraged from contributing, but I suggest you work slowly at first adding single sentence edits and look at other articles to learn how do things here. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to take the liberty of formatting the original proposal with blockquotes so we can more effectively discuss it. --Artoria2e5 🌉 05:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph belong better in the "Virology" section; some information is redundant but the part about vaccinia homology is new. Alternatively, do a smaller excision and only delete all words before "Despite". Artoria2e5 🌉 05:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)