Talk:Group-specific antigen

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

AIDS Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Viruses Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Why should gp41 and gp120 links redirect to the Group-specific antigen article? Considering that gp41 and gp120 HIV protein articles already exist, I think that the Group-specific antigen redirection should be removed. Jacopopitaciu (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content here. Please voice any objections you might have. There's a reference duplication issue (if someone wants to help me with that), and I haven't added all the content I'm planning to add, but I plan to add more content and figure out how to correct the references in the next few weeks. I also don't think the Gag-onc discussion is appropriate where it is, and I don't know enough about Gag-onc fusions to know whether it's even important enough to leave in.MRotten (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]