Talk:Prion

Another point

I'm going to raise another point here. "A prion (/ˈpriːɒn/ ⓘ) is a misfolded protein that induces folding problems in normal variants of the same protein, leading to cellular death." Where is the evidence that it's a protein? Word number 6 in the quoted text. Where is the experiment that shows this? ~2026-35108-2 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay look. Last paragraph in the section Replication: "Researchers at Dartmouth College discovered that endogenous host cofactor molecules such as the phospholipid molecule (e.g. phosphatidylethanolamine) and polyanions (e.g. single stranded RNA molecules) are necessary to form PrPSc molecules with high levels of specific infectivity in vitro, whereas protein-only PrPSc molecules appear to lack significant levels of biological infectivity." So why are we stating that this is a protein in the introduction here? ~2026-35108-2 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

What are we doing here?

This article should be removed. There has never been any evidence that the infectious agent in these diseases is solely comprised of protein. Prions are an unproven hypothesis and it should be stated as such in the opening of this article. Instead this is presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35108-2 (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Further explanation of revision 1335956421 to avoid further wish-washery

In an effort to quell further reversion of my contributions on this topic, I feel the need to write some exposition on "burden of proof". As philosophy is regarded as an apex virtue here on Wikipedia, I am supposing (though correct me if I am wrong) that "burden of proof" is a heuristic valued in this organization. So do we appeal to someone's prestige in assessing scientific facts? Do we appeal to the special awards that they have? We judge the merit of a scientific idea with the concept that those who posit that an idea is true are the same who must defend it with evidence.

Let's look at the cohesion of this very article. Paragraph 2 states:

"They are the hypothesized cause of various diseases, including scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle (mad cow disease), and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD) in humans."

So if we are putting in our title sentence that this idea is a confirmed fact, is it a good idea to leave this in the next paragraph? Or are you really telling me that this second paragraph sentence should be removed? Again, this is burden of proof.

Fine.

I think we would agree that "prion" is an idea. So, why is it that what that idea constitutes is not stated here? Because the way this article is stated, it's as if we're talking about a "Chair". "A chair is a wooden or metal..."

Where in this article is the idea plainly stated with precise definitions? If I am to go off of the topic sentence, then let me raise the following points:

1. "Misfolded" is a value judgement, on how something naturally occurring "should be" (according to an abstract, plutonic, biology that does not exist.) Is there a laboratory test to determine whether a given protein is misfolded? Don't pretend you don't understand what I am saying.

2. "Protein". It is a fact, confirmed by evidence, confirmed by many experiments, that PrP alone as a protein cannot confer infection, does so only very weekly, or can only do so when sourced from infected biological tissue. Do I need to find sources to confirm this? That is not how burden of proof works. This very article states that cofactors are necessary. Are we going to remove this evidence because it doesn't make our title sentence convincing to the prevailing narrative? These are well establish facts in the research that yes, nucleic acid is needed for infection. How long does the Wikipedia article need to be dated before we accept that the research has advanced past Griffith original idea and Prusiner's limited interpretation of scientific evidence?

This is science. We do not determine facts by prevailing research dollars.

Show me evidence that isn't something sourced from brain doing something or something placed inside a brain doing something and then maybe I can take this idea seriously. Until then, I have very serious doubts about the specific interpretation of evidence as stated here in this article.

And to those who would revert these changes motivated by healthy scientific skepticism with cheeky descriptions like "Fixed grammar" I would remind you that human beings suffer under this disease which has no treatment or cure. ~2026-35108-2 (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Magic

The article claims that PrP^c can't be separated by centrifuge. Of course, the statement doesn't actually say what it means. You go, editors, nice job - if your job is to make the article as vague as possible. Separated from what? Sedimentation (i.e. centrifugation) segregates free particulates (including macromolecules) from fluid medium. It can fail if the particles aren't free to move, if the particles aren't sufficiently stable (to withstand the time, heat, or forces experienced) or if mixing (for example thermal convection currents in the medium) occurs. Other than those caveats, a ~205 aa polypeptide WILL settle under high-g centrifugation (in water). Full Stop. PrP^C CAN BE SEPARATED from solution (dispersion) to some extent. Other similarly dense materials will also separate, and there will always be some medium (i.e. water) present - the separation isn't quantitative. But perhaps the editor meant PrP^c can't be separated from PrP^Sc or from the other biomolecules typically present? Clearly, platelets ARE ROUTINELY separated by centrifugation, decisively contradicting the ridiculous assertion. It requires a belief in magic (or just a poor understanding of physical reality) to believe that in principle PrP isn't subject to the laws of physics. I make no claim whether or not centrifugation is a *practical* way to separate PrP from its medium. ~2026-92463-4 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Graham Beards (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

SSPE

I think there is a similarity between prion diseases and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) (and any similar neurodegenerativ diseases caused by viruses). Is there any research about relationships between prions and SSPE? I imagine that SSPE may be due to a measles virus, or portion thereof, that turns into a prion-like thing. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)