Talk:Prion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:21, 8 March 2012 edit137.186.47.81 (talk) →No such thing az PrPC iz.: Not about copper.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:42, 12 April 2024 edit undoSplashchen (talk \| contribs)16 edits Remove Fiat Lux - Communicating science to a global audience assignment detailsTags: Manual revert dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.3]
(133 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 20:		Line 20:
	\|topic=Natsci		\|topic=Natsci
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
			{{WikiProject Molecular Biology\|genetics=yes\|genetics-importance=mid\|MCB=yes \|MCB-importance=Top }}
	{{Wikiproject MCB\|importance=Top\|class=GA}}
	{{WikiProject Neuroscience~~\|class=GA~~\|importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Neuroscience\|importance=High}}
	{{~~WPMED\|class=GA~~\|importance=~~High~~}}		{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Genetics\|class=GA~~\|importance=~~mid\|imagedetails=~~}}		{{WikiProject Viruses\|importance=Top}}
	}}		}}
			{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}

	{{onlinesource\|year=2004\|section=February 2004		{{onlinesource\|year=2004\|section=February 2004
	\|title=ذره پروتئینی شگفت‌آور The Wonderful Proteinaceous Particle		\|title=ذره پروتئینی شگفت‌آور The Wonderful Proteinaceous Particle
Line 33:		Line 35:
	{{external peer review		{{external peer review
	\| date = December 14, 2005		\| date = December 14, 2005
	\| org = Nature		\| org = Nature (journal)\|Nature
	\| comment = It was found to have 7 errors.}}		\| comment = It was found to have 7 errors.}}

			{{Archive box\| ], ] }}
	{{archive box \| auto=yes }}

			== Shy-Drager syndrome (SDS) or multiple system atrophy (MSA): 1st new human prion disease in 50 years ==
			I'll leave it up to those who monitor this Wiki page to add this in:

			''The newly described addition to the prion disease canon, Shy-Drager syndrome (SDS) or multiple system atrophy (MSA), was first recognised in the early 1960s and has many features in common with Parkinson's disease.''

			''The most important of these is that a protein known as α-synuclein (α-syn) accumulates in the brain, in both Parkinson's and SDS/MSA.''

			from: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-newly-discovered-brain-disease-may-point-to-something-disturbing-about-alzheimers-and-parkinsons-2015-9

			== Self-propagate? ==
			"The word prion, coined in 1982 by Stanley B. Prusiner—derived from the words protein and infection, hence prion—is short for "proteinaceous infectious particle", in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to other prions."

			So a prion can transmit its conformation to OTHER PRIONS? That doesn't even make sense. It should be:

			"...in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to OTHER (as yet normal) PROTEINS."

			] (]) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
	== Pronunciation ==

			:I agree that the wording isn't right. I changed "to other prions" to "to other proteins", which corrects the inaccuracy, but there might be even better wording. -- ] (]) 13:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
	I'm not sure if we should specify only one pronunciation in the article. As much as some people are absolutely sure about this, IMHO it shouldn't be the same as that for "preon". Further, "when two vowels go walking, the first does the talking"; a little ditty which English-speaking folk should remember from grade-school. Also, the "pry'-on" pronunciation was in use years ago already, so I have a hard time believing it is wrong even if it has to share the choice of pronunciations in a dictionary. - ] (]) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
			I agree with you too, after all, ] was discovered to be a prion disease even though the prion is not prion protein PrP.] (]) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

			== 2x Research Subsections ==
	:I've seen ] make a point about the pronunciation before, so I'd suggest keeping the "one true pronunciation." --] (]) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
			{{u\|Jytdog }}: Sections 6 and 7 are both titled "Research". Perhaps you can review that too? Thanks. ] (]) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
			:fixed, sorry for the mistake. thanks for pointing it out. ] (]) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

			== Mention of TSEs in the lede ==
	{{/GA1}}
			Given that prions have been linked to MSA the lede should be changed to reflect that they aren't all associated with TSEs. -- ] (]) 02:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
			:Went ahead and made the change.--] (]) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

	== ~~Self-Replication~~ ==		== Pronounciation ==
			]. Read the very first words of the very first paragraph, very slowly. Do not skip anything. Sound out the IPA. Click the little "1". Click on the little speaker and listen. And then tell me exactly what is missing from this article. ] (]) 23:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

			] (]) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Dear User Jytdog,
	How is it that prions do not self-replicate? It's not like DNA singularly reconstructs copies of itself from constituent molecules. Virtually nothing recreates itself from basic components without the aid of environmental machinery, including DNA. Under what I infer the definition of self-replicating to be from the article's usage, I conclude that only self-catalyzing RNA such as Spiegelman's Monster are actually self-replicating. Moreover, the article on ] lists prions as an example! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Please do not be condescending. The first sentence shows "Pri" which every person (who has not read the "pronunciation" link) incorrectly thinks is Pry. No one clicks on the little 1, nor pays attention to the proper sounding. University students are referencing this page and mistakenly using Pry-on. The addition that I made leaves nothing to chance. However, since the first sentence is correct as you have indicated (perhaps assuming something?). I would be willing to simply include the 1982 Science paper with the original reference and get back to work. Deal? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: Even the monster requires RNA replicase... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			ps I'm not trying to "edit war" I'm trying to make a contribution. Why does the addition and reference cause a problem? Is there a space limit? Thanks for making my first ever wikipedia contribution experience so pleasant. ] (]) 23:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
			: We cannot control for stupidity nor aggression. and we don't repeat things twice in the lead. I've replaced oxford with a better ref. ] (]) 01:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
			Good morning,
			Would it be possible to add the actual 1982 reference (see above for the DOI) from the Journal of Science where Prof. Prusiner actually wrote "...prion (pronounced pree-on)..."? While the 2012 and 2015 references in the first paragraph are excellent and much better than the biography, it is always best practice to reference the original paper rather than subsequent articles. ] (]) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
			:In Misplaced Pages we use sources like the 1982 paper sparingly; they are what we call ] sources and secondary sources (] etc) are preferred, ''here in Misplaced Pages'' - Misplaced Pages is very different from other kinds of scientific publishing. ] (]) 18:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

			== CMR review ==
	== Proposed new section of prion replication mechanism ==
			] ] \| ] 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

			== Good prions? ==
	Earlier I deleted one of the figures, of the heterodimer model of prion propagation, because it was not supported by the data. I think it is important to put back something more about the replication mechanism. I have written a ], which I think would fit in very naturally between the Structure and Function sections. I included both the old figure that I deleted, and a new one. I don't know how to format figure size, could somebody please help? Also any other changes/suggestions before I insert this section into the real page.] (]) 17:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
			A friend recently told me there were good prions. But he couldn't point me at any references. If sources can be found, this would be great to add to this article. — ] (]) 00:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
			:Some prions can pass beneficial traits to yeast for better survival. That would not be good for hosts and I would not call them "good prions". Cheers, ] (]) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
			::The yeasts are the hosts? — ] (]) 04:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
			:::No, the yeasts are parasites of the host, which is trying to kill them.--] (]) 08:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

			== The "Normal" Prion ==
	: The "heterodimer" diagram wasn't intended to literally represent a dimer - it is just meant to be a broad representation of PrPC interacting with PrPSc or whatever the infectious form actually is. It definitely wasn't intended to mean the dimer would then split into two again. The section doesn't entirely make sense as it is - it says that the heterodimer model would require PrPSc to be an amazing catalyst, but then the fibril model described would still require PrPSc to convert PrPSc, so there's really no difference between them. I think this section is overcomplicated - it would better to have one diagram. Theres no need to mention fibrils, and it doesn't have to mention PrPSc, as you can have prion diseases without either of those being present. If you really want to go into detail, the 2 main contenders for mechanism have traditionally been template-assisted conversion and nucleation-polymerisation. ] 23:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
			Some people are referring to PrPc as "the normal prion"<ref>https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.2018.32.1_supplement.794.8</ref>. Who could blame them? If you don't like mystery acronyms but find "normally folded cellular prion protein" to be something of a mouthful, what's to be done? One answer is to call it "normal cellular prion protein," which is not quite so confusing. ] (]) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{reflist talk}}

			== How long do prions persist in the environment? ==
	::I think that the fact that prions require an oligomeric form is notable, and this is easier to explain by means of a contrast with an alternative model. There is a range of evidence pointing to some kind of fibril as this form. I tried to clarify the section you found confusing, and how cooperativity makes the two cases different: you can find more details in Eigen's paper. Most of the literature on nucleation-polymerisation concerns in vitro work. (Primary) nucleation is obviously not part of the process of a disease acquired a single time by infection. I think the article should focus on in vivo replication as far as is practical.] (]) 00:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

			Do they get broken down by soil bacteria? What about thermophilic composting? Can they filter through the soil of leach fields, etc.? What breaks them down in nature? Thanks. ] (]) 12:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
	== Image needed ==

			: {{ping\|Bio-CLC}} Overwhelming evidence shows that prions resist degradation and persist in the environment for years. Proteases do not degrade them, and I doubt anyone has found a natural degradation manner. Experimental evidence shows that unbound prions degrade over time, while soil-bound prions remain at stable or increasing levels, suggesting that prions likely accumulate in the environment: . ] (]) 16:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
	Need some 3d images of prions. --] (]) 21:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

			: {{ping\|Rowan Forest}} Thanks for the quick response, Rowan. That is scary. Is this in the main article? I did not find it. Please consider adding it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small>
	== Alzheimers caused by prions ==

			== Last paragraph of the Lead ==
	Research is showing alzheimers might be caused by it.--] (]) 21:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

			I have hidden the final paragraph of the Lead (which begins "Recent scientific observations show"). I have a full copy of the cited review by Mabbott et al. which I will use for verification. Some of the other (primary) sources used do not comply with ] and might have to be excluded unless secondary sources can be found that confirm the statements based on them. I'll return to this after I have read the review. ] (]) 16:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
	:That iz not news to me. The unifying symptom iz ].
	] (]) 15:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

			== Role of prions in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies ==
	== Is it alive? ==

			This section is very outdated (around ten years old) and much of it is sourced to primary research reports. I intend revise this section in the light of recent ]. ] (]) 06:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
	Given all that it does, is it reasonable to regard the prion as alive; ie, that it is a lifeform in its own right? I'm not pushing either answer, simply looking for arguments either for or against.
	] (]) 09:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

			:I have been unable to find any contemporary ] compliant sources to support the inclusion of this section. Most of which is based on primary reports from around a decade ago. I have been ] and deleted this section.] (]) 08:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
	== No such thing az PrP<sup>C</sup> iz. ==

			== Link to Virus portal should be removed ==
	No such thing az common protease resistant protein egzists. If such a thing wuz, then we would all hav Alzheimer's. This acronym iz a lie. Delete it, and replace it with "a protein that can become protease resistant", or just "a protein" or "amyloid precuror protein (APP)".
	] (]) 15:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

			I can't really see any major link between viruses and prions other than a bit on how they may have antiviral properties, so I don't think the link to the virus portal should be on the page.] (]) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
	:The name of the gene/protein is PrP. It doesn't matter what this originally stood for, although for the record, it stands for prion protein, not protease resistant protein, something made quite clear in the article. In any case, PrP is now its name. It is defined by its amino acid sequence, or homology thereto. You cannot change that fact on a wikipedia page. Amyloid precursor protein is a completely different protein. You cannot substitute that in. Nor can you substitute in generic reference to a protein. PrP is a particular protein, and PrPC is the accepted term for one form of that particular protein. I will revert your changes, please do not edit again without first getting consensus for this very major change on the talk page. I am also reverting changes to the heavy metal poisoning hypothesis section. No reason was given for the deletion of existing material, and the material you replaced it with is not supported by the accompanying references. ] (]) 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

			== Bioweapon section ==
	:Moreover, the ] (APP) is a completely different protein (sequence and structure) from ]. APP is (as the same suggests) the precursor protein from which the ] peptide is cleaved; the disease for which it is reasponsible – Alzheimer's – has never shown any sign of being susceptible to prion transmission. That said, we should probably look at the way the material in the 'Structure' and 'Function' sections is presented; there's a lot of material that's specific to mammalian PrP that probably shouldn't be in this more-general 'prion' article. ](]) 02:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

			Must this section really sound so ghoulish? Is the section necessary at all?
	:Material on the structure haz been deleted, because it would detract from what haz become the point of the article: It contains too much dissent, and it iz too overwhelming to actually believe in an infectious protein, so drawing pictures of it became offensive. No clear evidence of an infectious protein exists, and Gajdusek offers convincing evidence that the cause of CJD iz inorganic. Alzheimer's and CJD cannot be easily distinguished. Both of them rezult in a smaller brain with holes and amyloid plaques. An old version of this article (probably with pictures) lists the other "prion diseases", including other species, Alzheimer's among them. I put my bit in here to illustrate that yes, indeed, my references support my statements. I deleted the section az it wuz, because it did not clearly support the ] hypothesis. I can barely read it az it iz. I do not accept PrP to mean prion protein. The coroner's test of ] iz protease resistant protein, although there are probably many other tests and stains. PrP and APP are identical: See the link to amyloidosis. ] (]) 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

			:Agreed - this section seems inappropriate in multiple ways, and I think it should be removed. For one, tone-wise it reads as if it is promoting the use of prions as bioweapons, especially since it is not describing any previous use as such (of which there is none). On top of that, it just seems highly unnecessary and tangential to the focus of the article. ] (]) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
	::Perhaps you've been confused by the suggestion (for which at least some evidence does exist) that the major prion protein PrP may be a membrane ''receptor'' for the beta amyloid peptide? As long as you're hung up on basic factual errors like equating APP and PrP you're not going to be able to understand the literature, and I'm afraid there's not a lot I can do to help you.
	::In any event, could take a little more time to proofread your posts? The chronic misspellings are extremely distracting. ](]) 17:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

			::Hi there. I'm the user who started that section. In case you didn't know, Misplaced Pages _DOES NOT_ censor anything. Here is the quote from the ]-page: "'''Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.'''" --] (]) 20:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
	:My "misspellings" are literal and intentional. I am primarily a linguist. I know what schwa iz. The people who write pronunciations into wikipedia do not.
			:::I agree it's a thing to be taught that may be necessary. Misplaced Pages DOES NOT INCLUDE censorship ] (]) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

			== Biology ==
	:I looked around with the question "how does anyone know that PrP and APP are different". I did find an interesting article, and it did not answer my question. http://everything2.com/title/The+prion+protein+as+a+receptor+for+amyloid-beta It wuz a whole lot easier to read than anything Prussiner writes, though. Perhaps you can find something that explains this basic understanding you have, because az far az I know, basic understandings come from wikipedia. ] (]) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

			What is metabolism ] (]) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
	:Meanwhile, this gets 88 hits:
			:] is not in the article. You need to be more specific. ] (]) 07:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
	http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=PrP%20amyloid%20plaque

			== amyloid mention ==
	::The 'basic understanding' that APP and PrP are different proteins is readily apparent from their respective Misplaced Pages articles {{fact}}, to which I've already linked. I'm seriously concerned that your recent edits to this and other disease-related articles are not backed by a sufficient background competence in biochemistry and medicine, and your confrontational attitude (insisting that you be spoon-fed and tutored, and that other editors put up with your deliberate obfuscation of your language) disinclines me to expend the effort to deal with that deficit. ](]) 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

			>Amyloids are also responsible for several other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.
	:::Do not spend more time arguing with me than with my points. APP and PrP will both bind with copper. So, what happens in vivo? Do they fight for copper? This issue is a side issue. My section on Manganism is far less obfuscatory than what iz already there. What iz there begs relevance. ] (]) 09:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

			wasn't that found to be wrong recently? ] (]) 00:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
	== Heavy metal poisoning hypothesis ==

			== Citation 63 link goes to unrelated website ==
	Ash of ] is a vector of encephalopathy<ref name="pmid10716712">{{cite journal \|author=Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ, Gajdusek DC \|title=New studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of replication \|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America \|volume=97 \|issue=7 \|pages=3418–21 \|year=2000 \|month=March \|pmid=10716712 \|pmc=16254 \|doi=10.1073/pnas.050566797 \|url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10716712 \|accessdate=2010-02-28}}</ref>. That eliminates protein or ] as a vector, and allows ] as a model of disease. This agrees with Purdey's epidemiolgy, where encephalopathy is rampant among inhabitants of a Manganese mining operation. {{cite web\|url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=JpW_UmvGfoEC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=manganese+mining+purdey&source=bl&ots=u5jZWwckSw&sig=chZfMgejK0GvjGDQ1KoMkKbXpoI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xUxTT7DjG4Xu0gH_yeT_DQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=manganese%20mining%20purdey&f=false\|title=Animal Pharm}} It also agrees with research that shows Manganese makes a protein into a polymer, which is therefore protease resistant. {{cite pmid\|22007749}}

			The link for Citation #63 goes to a website called "men's journal", so it should be fixed, but it appears a lot in the article, so we might have to work together to fix it. ] (]) 14:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
	{{reflist}}

Latest revision as of 22:42, 12 April 2024

Prion has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 10, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 21, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 2, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses Top‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Prion.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"ذره پروتئینی شگفت‌آور The Wonderful Proteinaceous Particle". Shargh. February 1, 2004.

This article was reviewed by Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005.
Comments: It was found to have 7 errors.
For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

Shy-Drager syndrome (SDS) or multiple system atrophy (MSA): 1st new human prion disease in 50 years

I'll leave it up to those who monitor this Wiki page to add this in:

The newly described addition to the prion disease canon, Shy-Drager syndrome (SDS) or multiple system atrophy (MSA), was first recognised in the early 1960s and has many features in common with Parkinson's disease.

The most important of these is that a protein known as α-synuclein (α-syn) accumulates in the brain, in both Parkinson's and SDS/MSA.

from: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-newly-discovered-brain-disease-may-point-to-something-disturbing-about-alzheimers-and-parkinsons-2015-9

Self-propagate?

"The word prion, coined in 1982 by Stanley B. Prusiner—derived from the words protein and infection, hence prion—is short for "proteinaceous infectious particle", in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to other prions."

So a prion can transmit its conformation to OTHER PRIONS? That doesn't even make sense. It should be:

"...in reference to its ability to self-propagate and transmit its conformation to OTHER (as yet normal) PROTEINS."

71.139.160.208 (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the wording isn't right. I changed "to other prions" to "to other proteins", which corrects the inaccuracy, but there might be even better wording. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you too, after all, Multiple system atrophy was discovered to be a prion disease even though the prion is not prion protein PrP.Spidersmilk (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

2x Research Subsections

Jytdog: Sections 6 and 7 are both titled "Research". Perhaps you can review that too? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

fixed, sorry for the mistake. thanks for pointing it out. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Mention of TSEs in the lede

Given that prions have been linked to MSA the lede should be changed to reflect that they aren't all associated with TSEs. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the change.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Pronounciation

User: Ryan nmr. Read the very first words of the very first paragraph, very slowly. Do not skip anything. Sound out the IPA. Click the little "1". Click on the little speaker and listen. And then tell me exactly what is missing from this article. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

70.74.120.239 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Dear User Jytdog, Please do not be condescending. The first sentence shows "Pri" which every person (who has not read the "pronunciation" link) incorrectly thinks is Pry. No one clicks on the little 1, nor pays attention to the proper sounding. University students are referencing this page and mistakenly using Pry-on. The addition that I made leaves nothing to chance. However, since the first sentence is correct as you have indicated (perhaps assuming something?). I would be willing to simply include the 1982 Science paper with the original reference and get back to work. Deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan nmr (talk • contribs) 23:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC) ps I'm not trying to "edit war" I'm trying to make a contribution. Why does the addition and reference cause a problem? Is there a space limit? Thanks for making my first ever wikipedia contribution experience so pleasant. 70.74.120.239 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

We cannot control for stupidity nor aggression. and we don't repeat things twice in the lead. I've replaced oxford with a better ref. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, Would it be possible to add the actual 1982 reference (see above for the DOI) from the Journal of Science where Prof. Prusiner actually wrote "...prion (pronounced pree-on)..."? While the 2012 and 2015 references in the first paragraph are excellent and much better than the biography, it is always best practice to reference the original paper rather than subsequent articles. Ryan nmr (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages we use sources like the 1982 paper sparingly; they are what we call WP:PRIMARY sources and secondary sources (literature reviews etc) are preferred, here in Misplaced Pages - Misplaced Pages is very different from other kinds of scientific publishing. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

CMR review

doi:10.1128/CMR.00046-15 JFW | T@lk 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Good prions?

A friend recently told me there were good prions. But he couldn't point me at any references. If sources can be found, this would be great to add to this article. — Lentower (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Some prions can pass beneficial traits to yeast for better survival. That would not be good for hosts and I would not call them "good prions". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The yeasts are the hosts? — Lentower (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the yeasts are parasites of the host, which is trying to kill them.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Normal" Prion

Some people are referring to PrPc as "the normal prion". Who could blame them? If you don't like mystery acronyms but find "normally folded cellular prion protein" to be something of a mouthful, what's to be done? One answer is to call it "normal cellular prion protein," which is not quite so confusing. Page Notes (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.2018.32.1_supplement.794.8

How long do prions persist in the environment?

Do they get broken down by soil bacteria? What about thermophilic composting? Can they filter through the soil of leach fields, etc.? What breaks them down in nature? Thanks. Bio-CLC (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bio-CLC: Overwhelming evidence shows that prions resist degradation and persist in the environment for years. Proteases do not degrade them, and I doubt anyone has found a natural degradation manner. Experimental evidence shows that unbound prions degrade over time, while soil-bound prions remain at stable or increasing levels, suggesting that prions likely accumulate in the environment: The Ecology of Prions. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thanks for the quick response, Rowan. That is scary. Is this in the main article? I did not find it. Please consider adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bio-CLC (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the Lead

I have hidden the final paragraph of the Lead (which begins "Recent scientific observations show"). I have a full copy of the cited review by Mabbott et al. which I will use for verification. Some of the other (primary) sources used do not comply with WP:MEDRS and might have to be excluded unless secondary sources can be found that confirm the statements based on them. I'll return to this after I have read the review. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Role of prions in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

This section is very outdated (around ten years old) and much of it is sourced to primary research reports. I intend revise this section in the light of recent secondary sources. Graham Beards (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any contemporary WP:MEDRS compliant sources to support the inclusion of this section. Most of which is based on primary reports from around a decade ago. I have been WP:BOLD and deleted this section.Graham Beards (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Link to Virus portal should be removed

I can't really see any major link between viruses and prions other than a bit on how they *may* have antiviral properties, so I don't think the link to the virus portal should be on the page.GenericName784 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bioweapon section

Must this section really sound so ghoulish? Is the section necessary at all?

Agreed - this section seems inappropriate in multiple ways, and I think it should be removed. For one, tone-wise it reads as if it is promoting the use of prions as bioweapons, especially since it is not describing any previous use as such (of which there is none). On top of that, it just seems highly unnecessary and tangential to the focus of the article. Polynumeric (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm the user who started that section. In case you didn't know, Misplaced Pages _DOES NOT_ censor anything. Here is the quote from the Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not-page: "Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." --Pek~enwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's a thing to be taught that may be necessary. Misplaced Pages DOES NOT INCLUDE censorship Random kid who likes science (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Biology

What is metabolism 2409:4071:4E8E:F3B8:0:0:8589:4F15 (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

metabolism is not in the article. You need to be more specific. Graham Beards (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

amyloid mention

>Amyloids are also responsible for several other neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

wasn't that found to be wrong recently? 2A02:8070:6287:E0C0:7069:2168:A092:FD4E (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation 63 link goes to unrelated website

The link for Citation #63 goes to a website called "men's journal", so it should be fixed, but it appears a lot in the article, so we might have to work together to fix it. TypoEater (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories: