Talk:Inovirus

recent mention

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-bacteria-bacteriophages-collude-formation-clinically.html Directly refs. this virus

Too technical

As a lay reader I have found this stub way too technical to get anything from it. It reads like a very dull text book. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope my edits have made this easier to read, without removing the more technical aspects Bervin61 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the ridiculous bloating of the infobox of its red links and have just left the 2 blue ones. An info box- see below:

Purpose of an infobox

This quote comes from the guidelines on infoboxes, highlighting the purpose of an infobox: "summarize." Summarization means "not all." [1]

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 08:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This may be of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Species_list/docDrMicro (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brookie here. Taxoboxes should not list all the viruses in a genus or (worse) family or order. Giving the type species for genuses or the genuses for families makes good sense, so long as the full taxonomy is covered in the main article. Convincing example: Begomovirus has 288 species. Listing all 288 on separate lines would take more vertical space than the rest of the article. Bervin61 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger request

Ff phages into Inovirus

References:

• NCBI: Inovirus (genus)
• ICTV: ICTV Taxonomy history: Inovirus. 2019 EC 51, Berlin, Germany, July 2019; Email ratification March 2020 (MSL #35).

According to NCBI, all 3 phages, M13, Fd and f1 are members of genus Inovirus. There are no other members of this genus known, neither to ICTV nor to NCBI. That is all members of Ff phages are mebers of Inovirus and vice versa. Therefore Inovirus and Ff phages are identical.

With respect to ICTV, fd phage group and Filamentous phages are old names of Inovirus (genus). That is, all 4 names are synonymous: Inovirus, Ff phages, fd phage group, and Filamentous phages.

Currently we have Inoviridae as a redirect to Filamentous phages. This does not fit to the information provided by the ICTV.

1. this redirect should first be removed
2. the lemma Filamentous phages should be moved to Inoviridae as the article treats various members of that family.
3. The implicit redirect created by the move (from lemma Filamentous phages to lemma Inoviridae) should be changed in order to point to Inovirus. Alternatively, it could bechanged into a disambiguation as Filamentous phages might be understood as Inovirus as well asInoviridae

BTW do you think the meaning of filamentous phages might have changed over tim (that is from Inovirus as genus to Inoviridae as family? --Ernsts (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The situation for filamentous bacteriophage is much more complicated than mentioned, partly because the July 2019 ICTV does not take account of recent developments, especially Roux et al. 2019.

Several different articles on the general subject of filamentous bacteriophage discuss “Ff phages” (the three essentially identical phages fd, f1 and Mi3, see the section on Genetics in the current version of Ff phages, which documents this identity, and the section on History in the article on filamentous bacteriophage). Two of these articles, “Filamentous bacteriophage fd” and “f1 phage” have been merged into the article “Ff phages”, and the article “M13 bacteriophage” should also be merged into the existing article on “Ff phages”. The article Ff phages could become a subsection in “filamentous bacteriophage”. Comments and suggestions would be welcome.

The article named “filamentous bacteriophage” was renamed from “Inoviridae” to follow the general suggestion that article titles should be common usage rather than official designations (Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton).

There are also articles on similar phages, CTXφ bacteriophage and Spiroplasma phage 1-R8A2B. Many new phages related to the Ff group have been identified, leading to the suggestion for changes in the taxonomy. Androidpar (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! First let me state that thereis in fact a change concerning the term "Filamentous phage" as follows: ICTV's taxon history of Inovirus genus starts 1971 with this term (i. e. as a foormer name of that genus), but the current article in en WP identifies it with the whole family Inoviridae. This may be alright as meanwhile a lot of phages with filamentous morphology have been found, and may also be subject to further confinement, if the proposed taxonomy of Roux et al. 2019 gets accepted (either to a smaller family Inoviridae/Protoinoviridae or maybe even to the proposed subfam containing genus Inovirus). I also do not care about separate articles or one merged article about different strains or isolates of the same species or even genus (here Inovirus with f1, fd and M13). Or if a name officially accepted by the ICTV is chosen for the article and an informal name is redirected to it or vice versa (which I see do you prefer). That's not the problem. The point is the following: Genus Inovirus consists of f1, fd amd M13 phages/strains/isolates. And so does Ff phages. There is no difference by the current contents, isn't it? (However, there may be difference by definition which may result that one of them might grow by addition of further phages, the other not.) So if you see a difference between Ff phages and Inovirus what is the (potentially) bigger? What is the (potential) subset of the other? And, as long as there is no difference in the contents, what is the sense having different articles about the same set of phages/strains/isolates? (Concerning taxonomic ranks, if one is lower but monotypic in the higher, do we use to have two articles? E. g.:

Kingdom: Loebvirae

Phylum: Hofneiviricota

Class: Faserviricetes

Order: Tubulavirales

The higher ranks are redirected to Tubulavirales, no separate articles as they are all monotypic in this order. Or is there any point where I am wrong? :-) Kind regards--Ernsts (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW I just saw that inovirus and Ff phages have the same taxobox.--Ernsts (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. I agree: Inovirus has been redefined by ICTV so it appears identical to Ff phages. I tend to get lost in the taxonomy wilderness. It is strange that fd phage is listed as a “proposal” species under genus Inovirus, considering that fd was the type species for Inovirus until the 1980s. Your proposed merge of Ff phages into Inovirus makes sense. I would be glad to do this. I am still a novice, but I can play around in my sandbox, make any necessary edits before the merge, and further copy edits as needed, and then check with you that all is well. OK? Kind regards, Androidpar (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to merge Ff phages with Inovirus, but M13 is notable enough to have its own article, so there's no need to merge it into Inovirus too. Velayinosu (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Graham Beards (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That was my intention as it is compatible with NCBI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=10861&lvl=3&srchmode=1 Inovirus (genus)

Please note that they have "Bacteriophage M13" as a synonym for the ICTV-acknowledged species Escherichia virus M13 (instead as its type strain, which is no big difference). "Enterobacteria phage f1" is some strain of this species. Enterobacteria phage fd appears as a proposed species of genus Inovirus (so it might finally be a further strain of the M13 species as well).

That is, we could have articles Inovirus alias Ff phages for the genus, Escherichia virus M13 (or some informal alias) for the ICTV acknowledged species, and that's your proposal. We may or may not have separate articles for f1 and/or fd.--Ernsts (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we merge in the opposite direction (Inovirus into Ff phages) rather than as originally proposed (Ff phages into Inovirus)? Several publications use the word inovirus (beginning with lower case “i”) to refer to members of the family Inoviridae (not just members of the genus Inovirus), including the Roux 2019 paper and even the ICTV Ninth Report:

https://talk.ictvonline.org/ictv-reports/ictv_9th_report/ssdna-viruses-2011/w/ssdna_viruses/145/inoviridae

which contains the phrase “Lengths of inoviruses range from 700 nm for Pseudomonas phage Pf3 (5833 nt, h=0.24 nm), to 900 nm for E. coli phages in the Ff group (f1, fd, and M13)” This usage could be confusing. Specifically, after this version of the proposed merge, Wikipedia would have the existing article Ff phages, with the existing title and text, including the existing taxbox. Any useful text would be copied into the Ff phages article from the current Inovirus article, which would otherwise in future no longer exist. Searches for Inovirus would be redirected to Ff phages. Androidpar (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion of this merge for several weeks, and the “Ff phages” article has been edited to prepare it for a merge Inovirus into Ff phages as suggested on 4 March. If the original proposer of the merge Ff phages into Inovirus agrees with this change, can we now do the merge Inovirus into Ff phages? Androidpar (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)