Talk:Tobacco mosaic virus

Viruses Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I was just wondering if you could possibly put the size of this virus in nanometers. This would give a lot more information to the people studying it.

Thanks, a concerned student

can humans contract a viral G.I. INFECTION FROM CHEAP CIGARS DUE TO THIS VIRUS????

SICK SENIOR CITIZEN

REPLY TO :ARMYDENT@HOTMAIL.COM

The answer to your question is no. Tobacco mosaic virus does not cause disease in humans or animals. Jgassens 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The virus can of course get into human body either from inhaling the dust from the cigarette (doesnt have to be cheap, expensive cigarettes may contain TMV as well) or from eating infected tomatoes. This can trigger an immune response to the virus, i.e. antibodies against the virus can be detected in human blood. In certain rare cases it may theoretically cause an allergy, but I am not aware of any confirmed case of allergy to this particular virus. But since the virus is obligate plant pathogen, it cannot replicate in human cells. It cannot even enter human cells the way human viruses do. So the short answer is not, humans cannot be infected by TMV or by any other plant virus. And there are hundreds of other plant viruses present in the vegetables or fruits without being linked to any harm to humans. Xmort 22:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

information is needed on symptoms of infection, common hosts and control - i linked t he first google result but too busy to add to the article at this time 203.218.141.81 13:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The structure image should have a protein data bank (www.pdb.org) code typically 4 characters where the coordinates came from.

I removed following sentence: "and also the first life form to be completely modelled by computer simulation [1]." the link describes a computational similation of a different virus - Satelite tobacco mosaic virus. Xmort 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, the article contains in the first paragraph (I quote): "...it was not until 1930 that the cause was identified as a virus, a non-living particle which contains proteins and DNA." Whether a virus can be considered as living, however, is still being debated. As of yet there has been no consensus regarding this. Since a virus does not meet the required criteria for what is currently considered "living" (criteria that are hardly agreed upon in their own right), it would indeed be unwise to call it a life form. However, to describe a virus as non-living is something that cannot be backed up by facts. As I am no expert in this field, I'll stick to notifying you of this and hoping someone corrects it accordingly. Personally I'd suggest to simply cut the sentence after "virus", letting that word redirect to the appropriate article. I think the concept of viruses is generally so well known, no particular description is needed at that point. If not, the link to the article would take care of anyone's questions. --Nekotaku 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that some constituent in milk will render TMV harmless, and that workers who are involved in transplanting tomato plants, especially if they are smokers, may be required to rinse their hands in milk to prevent transmission of the virus from infected plants or from residue from tobacco smoke to the plants. I have searched to find out what the active ingredient in milk might be, without success. Does anyone know what it is? I assume it binds to the virus in some manner. Is it used for other solanaceous crops like peppers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.139.8 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be due to the milk being basic as opposed to acidic? I did a quick search and did not see anything about killing a virus with a basic substance 207.67.73.40 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to find the ACS abstract the text refers to to verify the existence of this long "word". On the internet I could find lots of references to this word, but no link to the ACS abstract. Could this be an "urban legend"? Also, the word describes only the protein component of the virus. Therefore it's incorrect to say that the word is a "designation for the virus", IMO.--Biologos (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I think the fact that, urban legend or not, the word needs to be added to this page, maybe merely because people will be looking for it when they find the TMV page? Pookiyama (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the following "word" (I copied it from an old version of the article): acetylseryltyrosylserylisoleucylthreonylserylprolylserylglutaminylphenylalanylvalylphenylalanyl- leucylserylserylvalyltryptophylalanylaspartylprolylisoleucylglutamylleucylleucylasparaginylvalyl- cysteinylthreonylserylserylleucylglycylasparaginylglutaminylphenylalanylglutaminylthreonylglutaminyl- glutaminylalanylarginylthreonylthreonylglutaminylvalylglutaminylglutaminylphenylalanylserylglutaminyl- valyltryptophyllysylprolylphenylalanylprolylglutaminylserylthreonylvalylarginylphenylalanylprolyl- glycylaspartylvalyltyrosyllysylvalyltyrosylarginyltyrosylasparaginylalanylvalylleucylaspartyl- prolylleucylisoleucylthreonylalanylleucylleucylglycylthreonylphenylalanylaspartylthreonylarginyl- asparaginylarginylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylvalylglutamylasparaginylglutaminylglutaminylserylprolyl- threonylthreonylalanylglutamylthreonylleucylaspartylalanylthreonylarginylarginylvalylaspartylaspartyl- alanylthreonylvalylalanylisoleucylarginylserylalanylasparaginylisoleucylasparaginylleucylvalyl- asparaginylglutamylleucylvalylarginylglycylthreonylglycylleucyltyrosylasparaginylglutaminylasparaginyl- threonylphenylalanylglutamylserylmethionylserylglycylleucylvalyltryptophylthreonylserylalanylprolylalanylserine
Again, it is not sourced. --Biologos (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. We are not putting this "word" in the article because it is not a real word. 12:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.18.96 (talk)

It is a real word. it can be found in "Schott's Original Miscellany" and here's the wiki article Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine Hypershock (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Schott give a reference?--Biologos (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¿to be the most strand?--Eloy (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, "+ strand," or "positive strand," are correct terms. See Sense (molecular_biology). DNA has two strands. Normally proteins are created using the sequence copied from one of the strands, and the other strand has an opposite sequence. RNA is commonly encountered as a single strand; depending on the biological function the strand may be a transcription of the coding strand of DNA (in which case it is positive-sense RNA) or of the other strand (in which case it is negative-sense), or occasionally something else that falls into neither category. One of the ways of classifying viruses is by the type of genetic material they contain: tobacco mosaic virus in particular contains positive strand RNA, whereas other viruses might contain negative strand RNA (like influenza), or DNA (like smallpox), or some weird mixture. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source referenced only has the date 1898, not 1889, so I'm assuming it's a typo. Plus I have a textbook in front of me that puts Ivanofsky before Beijerinck. Correct me if I'm wrong... Qwuery (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that there ought to be a picture of a plant infected with the virus, since it is known for the mosaic pattern? 63.3.9.129 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]