Talk:Antigenic drift

Should "DNA" be RNA since it's an RNA based virus

Yes. Influenza is an RNA, negative sense virus. The change has been made, along with a number of other modifications to make this entry more accurate. It could use a bit more work still. Revere.

Antigenetic shift

The article contradicts itself:

"Antigenic drift is distinct from antigenic shift, which is a faster mode of genetic change in viruses."

and

"Antigenic drift is not the same as antigenic shift, ..."

but

"While a mutation might be minor (and would then be called an antigenic shift), ..."

which implies that a minor antigenic drift is an antigenic shift. -Pgan002 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing parethesized statement until someone with more knowledge clears this up. --Paradoxian 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxian is correct, the statement in parenthesis is incorrect. Antigenic shifts are major events resulting from genomic recombination of multiple viruses. Minor base pair mutations are characteristic of antigenic drift. 12 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.79.160 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following is incorrect: "After an infection, the body produces many more of these virus-specific receptors . . . "

This would enhance the infectivity of the virus. I believe this is what was meant: "After an infection, the body produces antibodies against the viral antigens . . . " EuyeniaJean (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Says at end of intro;

"When such a change occurs, people who have had the illness in the past will lose their immunity to the new strain and vaccines against the original virus will also become less effective."

Couple of things, or questions. Does the antigenic shift result in a new strain? Either way people never had immunity to this "new version" of the virus, so how can they loose immunity? The "original virus" must refer to the unchanged/undrifted virus, so why would "old" vaccines become less effective against "old" viruses? Of course it should be read as saying the old vaccine will be less effective against the "new" virus, but one is slightly perplexed by the time one gets there - so not sure what it means!

I think there is a lot going on in that sentence which needs corrected! HonestIntelligence (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antigenic drift. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324043448/http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/Flu/Research/basic/AntigenicDriftIllustration.htm to http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/Flu/Research/basic/AntigenicDriftIllustration.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]