Talk:Virotherapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Biologist122.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 29 January 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 14jzl. Peer reviewers: Dsmerin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This
This is a total mess. It is a brochure, not an encyclopedic entry.

What happened to the previous article? The current article is not objective or neutral. Jr-bio 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with above opinion. This is not objective.

No mention of vaccinia (or poxviruses in general), which is one of the more major recent developments in virotherapy which much more favourable results than newcastle virus, and is far more established.

Only an on the fly mention of adenoviruses, no mention of ONYX-15, the first oncolytic virus to be accepted as a treatment towards cancer (in china) which though probably not as effective, is far more important historically than any of the mentioned viral agents. Adenoviruses were being researched as oncolytic agents in 1986.

No mention of HSV, another well established oncolytic virus with at least a decade of research. I know less about this one regretablly, been concentrating too much on vvDD, lol.

Its a bit crass that newcastle virus and ECHO-7 are mentioned, yet there is no explanation or mention of the viruses that defined the field, and that are even today being researched as oncolytic agents.

It would be nice if there were some mention of the process behind making a viral agent oncolytic, i.e. deleting genes that would make the virus effective in ordinary cells, but have no effect in cancerous ones, e.g Tk deletion in vaccinia, which makes it ineffective in normal cells, but allows the virus to remain virulent in cancerous cells (due to consistantly high levels of Tk)

Virotherapy isn't just limited to cancer treatment, the definition should include any theraputic effect garnered from a viral agent.

It feels like this is a giant billboard for Latvia and Hebrew university. Maybe its because of available websites as references. but i swear i remember there being a reference to ONYX-15 a couple of weeks earlier. That's mighty strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't this just be combined with the oncolytic viruses page. i mean their practically the same subject anyway. Very little virotherapy is actually involved in anything other than cancer. There was a paper is using viruses to deliver a imaging molecule to a specific area of the brain in order to produce a successful image. But even this was involved with imaging brain tumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.41 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Better write in Latin or Latvian if you don't speak English...
- because this "scientific publications" are a huge pain to read. Richiez (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit - Citing label?
- Regarding this edit;

Thanks for the better sourcing for the update. Sometimes it's nice being stalked by you.

Looking specifically at the line reading "As of 2016 there was no evidence that it extends the life of people with melanoma, or that it prevents metastasis."; this strikes me as a little odd for a couple reasons. 1) Is it normal that we'd cite an FDA drug label like that? Doesn't really seem like a secondary source. 2) Looking over the sources, it looks like they barely missed significance for overall survival and that sub-group analysis seemed to make it look like the drug could extend survival.

Isn't the current phrasing a bit misleading? The face value interpretation of that statement is that the drug doesn't extend life; whereas the the truth is that it probably does. It just hasn't been decisively proven. NickCT (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is on my watchlist. Labels are MEDRS sources. What you or I think about whether it extends life is irrelevant. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Labels are MEDRS, huh? Citation needed..... NickCT (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The FDA and EMA are "major medical and scientific bodies". Labels are tightly controlled by and published by the EMA and FDA. I am not addressing other regulatory agencies here. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As usual J, I agree in spirit with what you're saying (though maybe not the ungainly and vaguely rabid way in which you're saying it).
 * I think we just ought to exclude the not all together. Drug labels are published by drug manufacturers. Not the FDA. I presume you're implying the FDA is the major medical/scientific body and not Amgen. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing you have written here is accurate or useful. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great dodge. Way to address the point. NickCT (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Per FDA, FDA decides "whether the drug's proposed labeling (package insert) is appropriate, and what it should contain". Labels only say what FDA wants them to say. DferDaisy (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. So they're not published by the FDA. NickCT (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Library of Medicine publishes drug labels on behalf of FDA at DailyMed. DferDaisy (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "published". I'm asking who is the actual author of the information? Who wrote it? NickCT (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Plans for article improvement
- Biologist122 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Main Focus: Update "Viral gene therapy" subsection of "Specific projects and products" section.
 * Previous content was outdated and lacked notability given the current state of the field
 * New content provides information related to viral gene therapy products that have been approved in the US and/or EU
 * Ensure that information listed is backed by reputable sources with proper citations, with a focus on the "Viral gene therapy" section (currently has no citations)
 * Minor rewording throughout to maintain encyclopedic writing style
 * Addition of links to other Wikipedia articles where applicable
 * Addition of images, specifically of viral gene therapy

Wikiproject Medicine; UCF College of Medicine
Hello, I am a 4th year medical student participating in a Wikiproject Medicine course. A general outline of my work plan is below:


 * For each section (oncolytic virotherapy, viral gene therapy, and viral immunotherapy) I plan to organize by the following:
 * mechanisms: discuss the idea behind using virus for each of the following use
 * clinical developments: discuss up to date trials and gene therapy products (may reorganize it to include specific projects and products)
 * Challenges: the challenge with each therapy

In addition, I will be incorporating the plans for article improvements suggested by Biologist122. 14jzl (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Medicine; UCF College of Medicine peer review
Great job with the wikipage 14jzl! Organizing each section (oncolytic virotherapy, viral gene therapy, viral immunotherapy) by mechanism, clinical development, and challenges is intuitive and gives the page a nice flow. The citations are appropriate and have working links. The page is readable without much unnecessary punctuation or run-on sentences. The mechanisms are explained with technical detail appropriate for the page, the clinical developments are up-to-date, and important challenges are mentioned.

Suggestions:

There are a few grammatical errors scattered throughout the page.

Oncolytic virotherapy) mechanism: What are some examples of receptors on tumor cells which viruses target? How does the tumor microenvironment prevent recognition by the host immune system? clinical development: What are some examples of the clinical trials? challenges: What are some flu-like symptoms? What are some of the "safety concerns"?

viral gene therapy) mechanism: Provide some examples of diseases that could be treated with viral gene therapy. clinical development: What are some of the "several other features" that make Adeno-associated virus attractive for use in viral gene therapy? challenges: What are some of the ethical implications of the technology?

viral immunotherapy) cancer treatment: This section needs some citations.

Overall, great job! Dsmerin (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thank you for your feedbacks. I've either added additional information to answer those questions or linked to other Wikipedia articles that discussed those topics. -14jzl

Gene confusion removed
I was unable to find any source in regards to the following sentence: "One more method; gene confusion, in this method we can introduce specific artificial receptor in by which virus can bind, and resulting severity can be minimised.e.g.; introduction CD4 receptor against HIV virus." Because of this, I've removed it. If anyone is able to find the source for this please reverse my change. Thank you 14jzl (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)