Talk:RNA virus

HBV classified as an RNA virus?

 * Anyone have a source for the following claim (2nd sentence in the entry): "For example, Hepatitis B virus is classified as an RNA virus, even though its genome is double-stranded DNA, because the genome is transcribed into RNA during replication." I was under the impression that Hep B was classified as a reverse transcriptase DNA virus. -- MarcoTolo 20:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for pointing that out - I also found the contrary to be true: (Sources: and ) and will change the article accordingly -- Serephine / talk - 03:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disupted
Cheers, all, I'm RelentlessRouge. About standard RNA viruses and how they replicate, I'm not quite sure if that's right. What's written says the following (for negative-sense viruses):

RNA[-] ---> RNA[+](mRNA) ---> protein

How's the RNA replicate?

I might probably not know what the hell I'm talking about, but please enlighten me.

RelentlessRouge 11:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, virus replication is a messy thing to understand. A negative-sense virus cannot have its genome read by host ribosomes until it has been converted into positive-sense RNA - the ribosomes just won't translate it. In order:
 * The negative-sense strand of RNA is read by a host protein called RNA polymerase which makes a copy of it. This copy is now positive-sense - a bit like a mirror image.
 * This positive-sense strand acts as messenger RNA (mRNA) for the virus, and is read by the host ribosome
 * The ribosome constructs a protein based on what the mRNA tells it
 * This protein goes on in a number of different, complicated ways to direct the synthesis of new virions - such as the creation of more negative-sense RNA strands and capsid proteins.
 * Hopefully that helps. Thanks for pointing out that this might not be apparent at first glance, I'll update the article ☻ --  Serephine   ♠   talk   - 11:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help if the definition of negative-sense is mentioned in this article, because the negative-sense article redirects to here. 87.243.196.213 08:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of RNA viruses
I suggest adding a line to the initial paragraph to emphasise the importance of these viruses.

Notable human RNA viruses include SARS, Influenza and HCV.

--TransControl 08:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

'As such, they possess ribonucleic acid (RNA) as their genetic material and do not replicate using a DNA intermediate' HIV is an RNA virus that uses a DNA intermeadiate


 * As described in Virus classification, retroviruses like HIV are not (usually) included among the RNA viruses precisely because they violate that rule. The RNA world hypothesis suggests that they may be evolutionarily very distinct from regular RNA viruses. Sakkura 20:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an error in classification. Flavidiridae are put under Class IV and should be Class V. Pondo1950 (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mutation rates
There is no reference for this suspicious statement:
 * Retroviruses integrate a DNA intermediate of their RNA genome into the host genome, and therefore have a higher chance of correcting any mistakes in their genome thanks to the action of proof-reading DNA polymerases belonging to the host cell.

Any support for that? If the error occurs during reverse transcription, host DNA repair mechanisms will have no effect because the DNA strands that get integrated will match. I'll edit the statement and see how it sits.Scray (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes well spotted. Retroviruses have the best of both worlds. During their RNA phase they are highly mutable because of the error rate of RT. During the DNA phase their genomes are stable but errors made by the RT cannot be corrected. Favourable mutations naturally selected during the RT phase are stable in the DNA form and reproduce as DNA with the host DNA. --Graham Colm Talk 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

First sentence
Page 97 of does not say anything about classification, and papers like  see retroviruses as RNA viruses. Narayanese (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you're asking about RNA viruses lacking a DNA intermediate? Though I don't see where page 97 is cited in this respect (maybe I missed it), that reference does say (lines 3-4 in the second paragraph), "The absence of a DNA intermediate in the replication cycle of RNA viruses has, until recently...".  More to the point, the rewording of the first sentence is meant to highlight the classification of RNA viruses specifically as lacking a DNA intermediate.  The second sentence highlights this further, and the classification page reveals that the RNA viruses specifically lack a DNA intermediate.  Maybe I am missing your point?Scray (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that's the classification, then add a source that says so explicitly. Because I've seen many call retroviruses RNA viruses. Narayanese (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a relevant link to ICTV that shows the reverse-transcribing viruses clearly distinct from the RNA viruses. Using Google Books and the search string "virus classification characteristics fields", I was also able to find similar classification in Fields Virology (Table on page 28).  I have not seen a current, reputable source that explicitly includes the retroviridae in a formal classification of RNA viruses.  Can you provide one?  In any event, ICTV seems to be the gold standard now.  We (as a community) need to get the relevant pages in sync.Scray (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if the ICTV says so then I'm fine. Narayanese (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MeSH includes them though, so I think I'll add something about them sometimes being included. Narayanese (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ribovirus
Is a ribovirus the same as an RNA virus? The term doesn't seem to be used often (only 154 Google Scholar hits vs more than 30 thousand for "RNA virus", but I'm not sure if it is exactly the same or there's a subtle difference. --Itub (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ribovirus = any RNA virus that isn't a retrovirus (says ). So it's often a synonym. Narayanese (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, that was more or less what I had in mind. I've added a sentence to that effect to the article, but feel free to correct it or move it. I was looking for a quick definition and was a bit surprised that the word appeared nowhere on Wikipedia, so a brief mention here should help in case anyone else comes looking. --Itub (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

InterWiki discontinuity: Retroviruses are NOT RNA viruses???
"Retroviruses (Group VI) have a single-stranded RNA genome but are generally not considered RNA viruses" -this page, bottom of replication section "A retrovirus is an RNA virus"-first sentence of the first paragraph of the retrovirus page ... should I complain here or in the retrovirus page(well, ask for clarification, not complain, per se)? 71.50.222.194 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RNA_Virus has lost its lead
An introductory paragraph that probably explained the distinction between ssRNA and dsRNA viruses seems to have been lost, and the Characteristics section now begins by further parsing ssRNA viruses without first explaining what they are. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(-)ssRNA Virus
I will be making a new page for the (-)ssRNA Viruses. Could I transfer the information under the "Group V—negative-sense ssRNA viruses" heading for the page? ReadingFrame25 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Notes on each suggestion in the literature?
has, once again, made this addition which seems less than notable. It's a monograph, which reads like a letter rather than a review article, from a prominent virologist in a low-impact journal. The views expressed there are not mainstream - e.g. the use of terms like "ribocell", "virocell", and "ribovirocell" for cells based on how they divide and whether they are producing virions. It's clearly an opinion piece - are we going to post a "Note" throughout this encyclopedia whenever someone expresses an opinion? &mdash; soupvector (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this a suggestions that has been echoed by other sources? Or is this just something that was brought up by Patrick Forterre in one review? If the former, I'd be more convinced. If its just from this one source, then I think it might be premature to add a note here. If there's broader consensus among virologists to consider Endornaviridae and Hypoviridae plasmids, then no doubt that will be reflected in other sources as well. If it's just the opinion of one virologist, I don't think it merits inclusion in the article. Ajpolino (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ajpolino. If the matter were being debated in multiple well-known journals it might be worth mentioning, even if consensus were against. Forterre publishing in what looks like a rather minor journal does not seem sufficient. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposal that the Endornaviridae are related to plasmids is not new and goes back back at least to 2004: see Lapierre H, Signoret P-A (2004) Viruses and virus diseases of Poaceae (Gramineae). Others have commented on the relationship between this groups and plasmids: Fukuhara T, Koga R, Aoki N, Yuki C, Yamamoto N, Oyama N, Udagawa T, Horiuchi H, Miyazaki S & other authors (2006) The wide distribution of endornaviruses, large double-stranded RNA replicons with plasmid-like properties. Arch Virol 151: 995–1002. The RNA polymerase in the Hypoviridae suggest that this group may be derived from the alpha group (Koonin EV and Doljab VV (2014) Virus world as an evolutionary network of viruses and capsidless selfish elements. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 78 (2) 278-303) While ssDNA viruses are clearly related to plasmids, the relationship between RNA viruses and plasmids is not as clear. While I agree with soupvector that some of the ideas proposed by Forterre are not presently mainstream (I suspect some of them never will become main stream) the similarities between Endornaviridae and plasmids is well known and has been known for over a decade. Whether this amounts to "proof" that they share a common decent is not clear at the moment but it is at least presently plausible given that structural homologies, genome organisation and replication strategies are the only tools currently available to create an outline of viral evolution.
 * If I might offer Ajpolino and Espresso Addict a suggestion, it is that it might be worth reading the literature a little more carefully before commenting.Virion123 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Statovirus?
@ I'm intrigued by the addition of Statovirus to this page - could you provide a reliable source? Not easily found at present, but perhaps you've seen it somewhere. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ found it  &mdash; soupvector (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * soupvector this is the enormous advantage of WP over text based information systems. It can be and frequently is more up to date than any other reference source.
 * Of note I have not seen much response to the the two virus groups that I have provided references for above.Virion123 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, not WP:NOTNEWS - perhaps we should wait for at least a secondary source, since there's no guarantee that the ICTV will adopt the naming proposed. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTNEWS - "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage" Virion123 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy update
The ICTV made changes to the negative stranded virus taxonomy in 2016. These have now been included in the page. Virion123 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

List of RNA viruses
Hi all, I am a virologist and I use wiki a lot for quick referencing of unusual virus types. I would love to help out writing about them. In regards to this page, I find it somewhat pointless to just list names of different types of RNA viruses such as under contents #4, 5, and 6. Perhaps there could be a link to a general taxonomy tree on a separate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapefruits14 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Viruses generally don't behave well phylogenetically, given horizontal gene transfer and other phenomena that violate assumptions of phylogeny. Perhaps you just mean using a tree-like visual depicting one of the virus classification schemes? Any examples of what you intend? &mdash; soupvector (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Single-stranded RNA viruses
The section "Single-stranded RNA viruses and RNA Sense" talks only about RNA sense but does not have a single word about single-stranded RNA viruses, which I was looking for. It would be great to add this missing information so the title of the section is not misleading. --Chimel31 (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Orthornavirae which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)