 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Prions not universally accepted edit
There is no concensus that prions do cause disease a large minority still holds to the virus theory of "prion illnesses." Until it is decided definitively you cannot make such claims as fact and both sides need to be presented.
2602:306:CE96:AD70:3961:DB85:4F63:2EB9 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Carol Ayn
Virinos - a historical theory edit
This article doesn't make it clear that the virino concept is no longer a mainstream theory - prions are well established as protein-only agents. Prion strain is explained as a property of the protein's conformation. Also the article is incorrect in saying that the existence of strain proves that prions are information carrying - in mammals there is no evidence for that. The definition of strain in prion disease is based on the pathology - ie what bit of the brain it damages - and biochemical properties. --Purple 03:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Central Dogma edit
I'm not sure including discussion of the central dogma in the section about how the Virino theory was developed is necessary or even accurate. It's possible that more citations are required and that this is in fact pertinent to the subject, but within the one article originally cited there is no mention of the central dogma. I know that there were other researchers who wrote in support of the virino but I just don't know that any of them mentioned the central dogma. Notaneldrichhorror (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)