Talk:Satellite (biology)

Table
The table in your article is a good representation of what a satellite virus is versus a virus. One suggestions I would make is that your units match in the table. If you want to use kbp then you should be consistent and use kbp thought the table. Otherwise, this article is a good summary of what satellite viruses are and the article is easy to read. Karate bb (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
I made a few grammar corrections to the introduction, but otherwise, I feel that it is a strong introduction to the topic. With this sentence: A satellite virus of mamavirus that inhibits the replication of its host has been termed a virophage do you think it would be mamaviruses? It just didn't sound right to me, but I wasn't sure how else to word it.

With this sentence: A few years later in 1969, did scientists truly discovery another symbiotic relationship with the tobacco ringspot neopvirus (TobRV) and another satellite virus. I think that it also sounds awkward. Could you say something like It wasn't until a few years later in 1969, that scientists truly discovered another symbiotic relationship with the tobacco ringspot neopvirus (TobRV) and another satellite virus. I'm not sure.

I like the classification section, but I'm wondering if a small description could be added that would explain why they are classified this way or where the classification system comes from.

Your response to feedback:

Thanks for your feedback I did go back and change the sentence structure and satellites are classified as sub viral agents in that they require the help for co-infects therefore they do not have their own taxanomic classification. There is talk about proposing new genre for the classification of satellites. As far as the comment on mamavirus it is in broad terms considered a satellite because of its requirement of co-infection but ultimately is a Virophage because of the relationship between mamavirus and co-infection virus is parasitic where as satellite viruses are symbiotic relationships with co-infector. Abinkley95 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Clbabcock (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

History
The discovery section needs to be expanded and a section on characteristics which compares a satellite virus to other viruses and hosts would be appropriate. S L Seston (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject

 * WikiProject Viruses


 * wikiproject has been tagged inactive132.205.94.174 23:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

contradiction with another article
Can we create or find a virus that will target and attack carona and overwhelm the virus? then neutralize that virus with a vaccine? 38.142.169.94 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

co ordinate your articles
to people writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virophage and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_(biology)

you seem to have contradictory ideas about the difference between a virophage and a satellite virus can you two please edit your articles so they are not in conflict ? thanks !!

Requested move 22 July 2020

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: withdrawn (non-admin closure)  --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Satellite (biology) → Satellite (subviral agent) – The use of the term "satellite" occurs more than once in biology, as well as for the subviral agent, most notably in satellite chromosome or satellite DNA. However the title "Satellite (biology)" suggests this is the only biological use of the term. Now the hatnotes and lead section does clarify this somewhat, but I think it would be preferable to use this as a title to clarify it somewhat. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally "satellite DNA" could be confused with "satellite nucleic acids" used on the subviral context! Its a rather confusing mishmash of different terminology altogether. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 12:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Adeno-associated viruses and other dependoviruses are satellites but they are not considered to be sub-viral.Graham Beards (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * as far as I'm aware all satellites are considered to be subviral. But the ICTV consider other agents also to be subviral, for example viroids. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now. Quite often the ICTV tend to categorize particles as being both viral and subviral:
 * At Dependovirus is ranked as a satellite virus: 4. Adenovirus-associated satellite virus (Dependovirus) under ICTV Reports > ICTV 9th Report (2011) > Subviral Agents (2011) > Subviral Agents.
 * At its ranked under Monodnaviria > Shotokuvirae > Cossaviricota >Quintoviricetes > Piccovirales > Parvoviridae > Parvovirinae > Dependoparvovirus
 * As a general rule, satellite viruses are categorized as both satellites (and therefore subviral particles) but also as viruses. While this is hardly optimal, its the way the ICTV choose to do things. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 16:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As far As I can see they are (rightly) classified as viruses.  . Where does it say that they are sub-viral agents? Graham Beards (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At Satellites and Other Virus-dependent Nucleic Acids. It says Definitions: Satellites are subviral agents which lack genes that could encode functions needed for replication. Then further down under Categories of satellites it lists the following: Adenovirus-associated satellite virus (Dependovirus). --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I am considering withdrawing this as there seems to be opposition, and well grounded due to the confusing terminology employed by sources. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 17:41, 22 July 2020 (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.