Can mRNA Biotechnology be Adapted to Improve Flu Vaccines and Fight Cancer? (reuters.com) 75
Reuters notes the "miraculous speed" of mRNA vaccines, while also calling it "a glimpse of what's possible if it can be applied post-pandemic to treat cancer or rare diseases."
The vaccine market alone is worth about $35 billion each year, and investors apparently believe mRNA companies will capture around two-third of that, leading market researcher Bernstein to evalaute the combined worth of mRNA companies at nearly $180 billion. The technology is the closest thing yet to making medicine digital. MRNA vaccines essentially inject genetic code that instructs a recipients' cells to construct a part of the virus. The body recognizes the produced protein as foreign and mounts a future immune response when exposed. Moderna and BioNTech's vaccines show the technology works fast. Vaccines typically take a decade to develop. They took less than a year...
The speed of mRNA therapeutics is a big advantage. For example, flu vaccines only reduce the risk of illness by up to 60% because makers must guess which strains will be prevalent each season. Sometimes they're wrong. Shaving months off means better guesses, and higher efficacy.
The bigger opportunity comes from the validation of the mRNA "platform". Instructing cells to produce desired proteins could lead to multiple advances. Perhaps they can instruct the body to more vigorously attack cancerous cells or repair damaged tissue. Producing missing proteins might fight inherited diseases...
Success against Covid-19 means these companies will be flush with cash from sales and attract partnerships and scientific talent. That should make 2021 a watershed.
The vaccine market alone is worth about $35 billion each year, and investors apparently believe mRNA companies will capture around two-third of that, leading market researcher Bernstein to evalaute the combined worth of mRNA companies at nearly $180 billion. The technology is the closest thing yet to making medicine digital. MRNA vaccines essentially inject genetic code that instructs a recipients' cells to construct a part of the virus. The body recognizes the produced protein as foreign and mounts a future immune response when exposed. Moderna and BioNTech's vaccines show the technology works fast. Vaccines typically take a decade to develop. They took less than a year...
The speed of mRNA therapeutics is a big advantage. For example, flu vaccines only reduce the risk of illness by up to 60% because makers must guess which strains will be prevalent each season. Sometimes they're wrong. Shaving months off means better guesses, and higher efficacy.
The bigger opportunity comes from the validation of the mRNA "platform". Instructing cells to produce desired proteins could lead to multiple advances. Perhaps they can instruct the body to more vigorously attack cancerous cells or repair damaged tissue. Producing missing proteins might fight inherited diseases...
Success against Covid-19 means these companies will be flush with cash from sales and attract partnerships and scientific talent. That should make 2021 a watershed.
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it was the mRNA cancer vaccines technology that was adapted to fight COVID.
Reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
No. The problem with the flu vaccine is not something mRNA magically solves. The speed of developing a flu vaccine hasn't been a limiting factor for a long time. It's its seasonal variance combined with manufacturing capability.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
You can change that entire dynamic by mRNA vaccine, provided you tweak the protein such that your body would develop antibodies against the correct part of the protein.
mRNA is a once off; bad for cancer (Score:1)
As I understand it, they put the RNA into a different benign virus vector, which infects human cells that, as a side affect, produces the antigen that triggers the immune response.
However, there are only a couple of suitable benign viruses known. And once you use one on a population the population become immune to it and so you can never use that vector again. So mRNA will not work for Covid-21 if one arises that is immune to the current vaccine because there will not be any good vector to facilitate it.
B
Re: mRNA is a once off; bad for cancer (Score:4, Informative)
Neither Moderna nor BioNTech vaccines use viral vectors. They encapsulate it in lipid nanoparticles instead.
Re: (Score:1)
As I understand it, they put the RNA into a different benign virus vector
That's not right. This technique doesn't use a virus at all. If can be applied to almost virus that the body is able to mount an immune defense against. HIV is not one of those, but most are, and now the time to develop a vaccine against one will be greatly reduced. We got lucky that Covid-19 is not so deadly, and now if (when) one comes along that is we will be able to respond more quickly.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
not entirely, there are parts of flu virus spike protein that are quite static and unchanging and there are parts that mutate rapidly.
The not quite true. Flu virus uses sialic acid as a receptor, and it's a fairly simple molecule. So flu virus has a lot of leeway to mutate, because there are many ways for proteins to attach to sialic acid.
COVID uses a fairly complicated protein as a receptor, and so its "spike" protein must fit the ACE2 receptor pretty tightly. This obviously constrains the virus quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was actually talking about cancer, although I have to say flu can also likely be vaccinated against with mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines are a lot more manufacturable than flu vaccines. The fact that you contradictorily admit the problem is "manufacturing capability" shows that you acknowledge the flu vaccine takes months to ramp up production. Once we have the factories, mRNA vaccines of different types can be manufactured at scale much faster and with less stringent protocols than the traditional flu vacc
Re: (Score:2)
Correct! Amazing to see Reuters fail so badly here, it's been widely publicized that the COVID vaccine was developed out of cancer research.
Covid vccination will probably be a one off thing (Score:2)
Yep 1-2 days to develop a vaccine is awesome (Score:3)
Something interesting that isn't mentioned often is that it took a day or two to develop the vaccines after China released the gene sequence. After that it's been testing them.
The new processes get rid of years of development time for whatever needs to be developed next.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes we are already at a point where you can paste a virus genome into a vaccine generator program and it will spit out the code for the vaccine. If you have a DNA synthesizer at home ($300k investment unless you DIY the thing), you could just make yourself a vaccine when news starts breaking about some nasty virus. This is with present day technology.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite that easy. You have to know which protein to target. One you make that choice, it's pretty much copy, paste, send to printer though.
Re: Yep 1-2 days to develop a vaccine is awesome (Score:2)
Computer can assist with that. It can identify the transmembrane and capsid proteins at worst and unless we are dealing with a previously unknown virus family identify any receptors the virus may use. And btw how great are humans at selecting the target proteins? When someone gets the Covid virus, the immune system often makes more antibodies targeting the N protein (nucleocapsid) than the S protein. Yet weâ(TM)ve been going after the S protein. Maybe (but not necessarily) that would have been a better
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest reason for vaccine failures is mistargeting. That's also why it generally takes so long to develop a vaccine: you've got to try stuff and fail a bunch of times until you hit the right thing. The SARS-2 vaccines are all targeting pretty much the same thing because it's what SARS-1 and MERS research indicated was a good candidate.
There are a bunch of things to consider, not least of which is how difficult it is for the virus to mutate the target area, and what might happen if it did. You've even g
The anti-GMO crowd will need to deal with this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The anti-GMO crowd will need to deal with this. (Score:5, Interesting)
While that's true, do you think the average anti-GMO nutcase believes that? Reference: https://www.facebook.com/steve... [facebook.com]
If someone is stupid enough to be anti-GMO, they'll also be anti-vax.
Re:The anti-GMO crowd will need to deal with this. (Score:5, Insightful)
No they won't. I'm anti-GMO for a variety of reasons that aren't hysterical. I don't want gene patents. I don't want unforeseen errors creeping in to lines. I don't want wind-blown pollen altering my crops and getting me sued. I don't want altered salmon getting released in to the environment and having unpredictable outcomes for threatened wild populations--potentially putting a nail in the coffin and making it an "our way or the highway" for patented farm-raised fish.
If you want to call us "stupid" on the Internet, go right ahead.
I'm also smart enough to weigh the consequences of industrial scale DNA modification vs. RNA insertion vs. getting Covid. Some time in the next few months, there's a chance of my cells being invaded by either Covid or an RNA containing nanoparticle. I choose the nanoparticle in this case.
But whatever. I'm "stupid" because I don't also choose GMOs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are right!
You ARE stupid.
GMOs are a "bogeyman"
Do you enjoy brussel sprouts? GMO. It is bred by humans from mediterranean wild mustard (brassica).
As is cabbage, horseradish , cauliflower, collard greens, etc.. etc..,
Re:The anti-GMO crowd will need to deal with this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you enjoy brussel sprouts? GMO. It is bred by humans from mediterranean wild mustard (brassica).
I suspect you know full well that selective breeding is not GMO. GMO differs because it permits results not "possible" (feasibly probable) with breeding. While nature may sometimes transfer genes between kingdoms, it does not protect them, and preserve and breed (and clone) mass monocultures of them.
This does not speak to whether any specific GMO product is good or bad, only to the failure of the notion that breeding is the same thing. It is not.
Re: The anti-GMO crowd will need to deal with this (Score:2, Insightful)
Selective breeding is more dangerous and risky than GMO.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Who told you that?
Re: (Score:2)
Selective breeding is more dangerous and risky than GMO.
What? Who told you that?
Every biologist who knows what's actually going on. Selective breeding is using a sledgehammer to cut down a tree. Sure it works, but it splatters genes all over creation in the process. You literally don't know what your selective breeding is bringing along with your desirable traits, because you're doing it completely blind of what the DNA actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is "bread" it is not GMO.
Stop being a retard.
Re: (Score:3)
Selective breeding should be feared MORE than GMO. You are repeatedly selecting random mutations and coaxing them to survive/outcompete. Also, in many cases they've been hybridizing them with plant relatives that they wouldn't normally be in contact with. That's some serious meddling with the chromosomes .. yet somehow it's safer than a GMO which is some targeted mutations or the insertion of a single protein-making gene? Like nature is randomly pumping out various shit we don't know about .. yet it's safer
Re: (Score:2)
I mean lots of poisons like Hemlock or poison ivy come from nature. How do you know selective breeding can't accidentally produce that?
It's happened [wikipedia.org].
Re:The anti-GMO crowd will need to deal with this. (Score:4, Interesting)
No they won't. I'm anti-GMO for a variety of reasons that aren't hysterical. I don't want gene patents. I don't want unforeseen errors creeping in to lines. I don't want wind-blown pollen altering my crops and getting me sued. I don't want altered salmon getting released in to the environment and having unpredictable outcomes for threatened wild populations--potentially putting a nail in the coffin and making it an "our way or the highway" for patented farm-raised fish.
Pretty much all of the stuff you listed here is a hysterical nonsense.
Meanwhile, classic breeding techniques are completely unregulated and already caused several cases of poisonous cultivars. The most famous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all of the stuff you listed here is a hysterical nonsense.
If you think so, you either have a reading comprehension problem, or a problem grasping the topic of GMO. Probably both.
and already caused several cases of poisonous cultivars
And what has poisonous to do with any of the points he made?
Obviously: nothing You see: you did not grasp what he wrote, but want to call him hysteric. You are an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think so, you either have a reading comprehension problem, or a problem grasping the topic of GMO. Probably both.
None of the listed concerns is real. Nobody got sued for accidentally blown-in GM seeds, "unforeseen errors" are called "mutations" and it's the MAIN way modern classic cultivars are produced, GM fish has been in use for years and has done nothing whatsoever with wild fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Your claims have no basis, sorry.
How will you know that GMed fish have not influenced wild fish?
simple: you can't know that.
Re: (Score:2)
How will you know that GMed fish have not influenced wild fish?
How do we know that you dumbosity have not influenced wild fish? We should just use you for compost immediately to be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Because my sperm:
a) does not end up living in fresh water
b) there is no fish in the world compatible with my sperm
Dumbass?
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is stupid enough to be anti-GMO, they'll also be anti-vax.
The only one stupid is you. Tell me 3 reasons why people are against GMO? Hopp hoop, can't be so hard. Oh, you know none? So how do you come to the idea anti-GMO people are stupid?
BTW: I'm anti-GMO. But obviously not anti-vax, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
"People that think all genetic engineering is evil will have to find a way to come to grips with this. "
People might balk about a GMO salad, but a GMO salad that gives them a huge dick, he'd be all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a slight difference if you put a genome into an organism where it does not belong, and on top of that let that organism lose in the wild, versus using an DNA printer to produce a single mRNA, that is gone after a few days.
how long exactly do the instructions last ? (Score:1)
MRNA vaccines essentially inject genetic code that instructs a recipients' cells to construct a part of the virus.
Do your cells generate the protein, or whatever it is they are constructing, forever ? I would expect, with my limited knowledge, that they probably get broken down at some point, almost everything in a cell is broken down/recycled.
How long does the construction effort last, i.e., can your cells go on creating the item for too long ?
Can the mRNA be damaged/spliced/mutated and cause your cells to
Re: (Score:2)
>Do your cells generate the protein, or whatever it is they are constructing, forever ?
No, not forever.
>I would expect, with my limited knowledge, that they probably get broken down at some point, almost everything in a cell is broken down/recycled.
Correct.
>How long does the construction effort last, i.e., can your cells go on creating the item for too long ?
Months in the case of self amplifying mRNA vaccines.
>Can the mRNA be damaged/spliced/mutated and cause your cells to generate the wrong thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Immune cells have a gigantic catalog of allowed proteins.
If they find one that is not in that catalog they get into alert mode.
Re: (Score:2)
mRNA is broken down in the ribosomes relatively quickly by processes poorly understood, the message is a send once, read few thing. Yes there will be some mistakes in the cells but that is what viruses mutate to begin with
Re: (Score:1)
Tutorial for what mRNA vaccine contains for techie (Score:5, Interesting)
https://berthub.eu/articles/po... [berthub.eu]
I don't know about you, but this helped me understand what's in the Pfizer vaccine a lot better (yeah, I knew that the idea is that your own cells start manufacturing the spike protein and you get immunity against that - but how that exactly happens was unclear).
One of the best explanations I've had, and comparisons to programming are nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That article was fantastic... mind-blowing stuff explained simply.
Excellent but misses a key part; Patents (Score:2)
Most of what is written is either technical papers for experts or journalistic fluff, and this is great. Exactly what an engineer wants to read.
One big thing it does not cover is how they get the RNA into cells into the first place. My understanding is that they use a different virus, which is its Archilles heel.
Also, it occurs to me that there must be hundreds of patents involved with this, all owned by different organizations, and any one of them could kill the vaccine. So how is it possible to actuall
Re: (Score:2)
The Oxford vaccine and some others use viral vectors, not the mRNA vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
One big thing it does not cover is how they get the RNA into cells into the first place. My understanding is that they use a different virus, which is its Archilles heel.
No, no virus involved, you seem have to skipped the info, as it is quite in the beginning.
The mRNA nano particles are coated into a lipide hull, and via that they enter the human cells.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no relevant patents at all.
The nobel price for this was granted around 1975 ... 40 years ago :P
Where there's a will... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Vaccines typically take a decade to develop. They took less than a year"
The Oxford/AZ vaccine was developed in a similar timeframe, using more traditional techniques.
mRNA may (or not) have a benefit, but it isn't necessarily that much quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
The Oxford/AZ vaccine isn't very traditional. Instead of using mRNA encapsulated in some carrier structure it uses DNA inserted into a hollowed out virus. The goal is very similar: to cause your cells to manufacture a selected protein, but the instructions are written in a different language and they're carried in a different container.
Examples of vaccines actually using more traditional techniques would be some of the Chinese vaccines using inactivated virus.
Astra Zeneca/Oxford is not a traditional vaccine (Score:2)
It uses an engineered adenovirus to alter the cells' DNA so that they themselves produce the mRNA and subsequently the spike protein. As far as I know, it's manufactured on a platform initially developed for gene therapy.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That is wrong.
mRNA is just mRNA. No virus involved. The "traditional" vaccines use an adeno virus.
You WISH (Score:1)
I love the comment in this article: "Success against Covid-19 means these companies will be flush with cash from sales and attract partnerships and scientific talent"
You are so naive!
IF that happens, What will happen is that the shareholders will pocket a lot more money for a year or two.
Elephant in the room? (Score:1)
I've read about and wish these mRNA vaccines are the real deal but what I have a hard time getting over is that both BioNTech and Moderna have been in business for 10-12 years and none have produced anything that went further than phase 1 up until now. I know we need this vaccine asap and that a moderate risk is preferable to leaving the virus rampant but I still have this uneasy feeling that we're rushing into a tech that hasn't been proven and might bite back at the worst of times.
Re: (Score:3)
Cancer vaccines. Also, they did have HIV, Influenza, and other infectious diseases in their vaccine development pipeline well before Covid.
Reference: https://biontech.de/sites/defa... [biontech.de]
Very interesting audio (Score:2)
I heard this on Christmas Eve and the next morning I cried thinking about how Santa might really exist and bring a miracle for many of us.
https://fortune.com/2020/11/30... [fortune.com]
Cancer and mRNA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The holy grail of RNA vacines is to take a sample from your tumor. Identify a common protein in it and create RNA for that protein and inject. Your own body will supposedly create antibodies to that protein which will then go and kill the cancer cells while leaving other cells alone. Personalized cancer cure.
Just make sure the protein you choose isn't a common one in other cells you need to live.
And, done on purpose, it sure would make for one heck of a personalized life "cure"...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a personalized mRNA which only attacks the cells of a single individual. Just introduce into the air conditioning in a public venue. Your target dies while everyone else is unaffected.
mRNA vaccines have to be injected.
The quickest! (Score:1)
Surely (Score:1)
But will they?
How about something even more obvious? (Score:1)