Does anybody have a good link for a layman's overview of how mRNA vaccines work? Lot's of nervousness from people around this, and would love to be able to help quell some of that.
The way that one works is a bit complex. Essentially, they still want your immune system to recognize that the virus is bad and then make antibodies against it.
Usually, you inject broken up bits of a dead virus into a person. The immune system sees the foreign objects, and makes antibodies against it.
Withe ModeRNA's vaccine, we go inside out. You have the body produce inactive parts of the virus itself. In this case, the 'spike' proteins of the viral capsid.
They do this by injecting mRNA into you. Through some complex bio-chem, the mRNA that codes for the spike protein gets into your cells and makes the ribosome complexes produce the spike protein. These then get out of the cells, again via some complex bio-chem, and the immune system sees these spike proteins. The immune system then builds antibodies to the spike proteins, just like with a regular vaccine.
Basically, you skip a few steps in the antibody creation process.
I want to stress the mRNA injection part. This method skips the DNA, meaning that you are not editing the genetic code of the cell.
The real magic here is the potential such a method has. With this method, you can have much better targeted cancer cures, much broader flu vaccines, and time limited protein production. Think time-limited genetic engineering, minus the actual gene editing. Want to glow green for a few days? No problem. Want to mitigate diseases caused by missing DNA? Just take this.
Note: This is copied from a previous comment of mine here:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25047289
1) "Skipping steps" This appears to be doing the opposite. In an old vaccine, you'd just dump a bunch of spike proteins into the system. Here, you're adding the step of making the body produce them. Could you clarify?
2) Why not just produce those spikes in a lab? Is it just much less resource intensive to have the bodies make them?
3) As far as stressing that this doesn't alter DNA: Wouldn't it suffice to say "this does what viruses already do, but less"?
2) It's hard to produce proteins in the lab. Our own cells are pro at it, though, including all of the post-translational modifications (like attaching sugars and careful protein folding) that can make all the difference.
3) Pretty much. Since it's just one gene being introduced, it will not produce new virions, only the spike protein that our immune system needs to recognize.
Source: Am microbiologists, although not a virologist.
Is it as simple as amplifying a DNA template with the spike protein sequence and any necessary promoter sequences then adding some RNA polymerase with free RNA nucleotides?
Is this bio-chem designed by Moderna, or is it just a property of the mRNA? Does all mRNA follow the same path into the cell?
Not all mRNA follows the path that the Moderna vaccine uses.
Someone else please chime in if I am wrong here, but their method is basically use little lipid micelles (fat micro-blobs) that cover the mRNA. Because of some biochem, these micelles can then enter a healthy cell and disgorge the mRNA. This is kinda how a virus works as well. However, these micelles seem to be very fragile, hence the very cold temperatures needed for transport.
Once in the cell the mRNA then diffuses and is translated by ribosomes into protiens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0MA48bfshw#t=2h14m3s
The overall video is a about vaccines in general (Hotep Jesus is rather skeptical of them), but Lupe explaining how mRNA vaccines work starts at this timestamp. There's also a place where the audio cuts out. It's only a minute or so, but they go back and finish where they left off.
But also - that's reverse transcription, not reverse translation. Maybe Lupe made this point a little too late in his description.
EDIT: Sorry, moved around the above after rethinking
Retroviruses are a subset of RNA viruses that utilize the strategy you're referring to. This requires additional machinery be coded for to allow reverse transcription to DNA and then subsequent integration into host DNA. The vast majority of RNA viruses are not retroviruses.
He's strongly evidence and data based and steers clear of most anything that can reasonably be considered 'political'.
Those parts, in turn, trigger your immune system to build up defenses against the virus so that, if it encounters the real virus, it can contain the infection.
mRNA degrades fairly rapidly, so this won’t keep triggering your immune system (but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Side_effects_and_r... says the mechanism used to do the ‘inject’ part may trigger its own immune reaction)
mRNA vaccines give the bits needed to skip to the last step in the process. Notably, there is nothing about "genetics" involved here.
I have no idea if that's the angle you're mentioning. I'd be really interested to hear the other potential dangers that others see.
With regard to functionality, that's a very open question. We're constantly finding that features that didn't seem useful are not just functional but important. This trend can be seen at multiple levels, from gut flora to "junk DNA."
As for what fraction of our genome is either shared with other non-human organisms or originated with them, it's tough to find a straight answer on that, but rest assured it's far from zero. See https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/ . That's been well-understood by everyone other than religious fundamentalists for some time now, and there are countless legitimate sources that can be cited.
Still, related to the importance of bacteria, while I don't doubt that, as we learn more, we will discover that they have a bigger role than even dreamed 50 years ago, you still can't compare it to the basic roles of human organs. We have actually created microorganism-free mice and other organisms, and while they are not very healthy, they are fully functional (with bad digestion and big immune problems): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ-free_animal
More seriously, this is one of those situations where the short-term pluses are plain to see, but the long-term risks are vague. Why not employ the precautionary principle here?
1) In terms of organ replacement, I agree it's a great opportunity -- but, we really won't or can't know the full spectrum of risks right away. Thalidomide, for example, was (for the most part) believed to be safe in the mid-50s, and it wasn't until the early 60s that awareness of the issues began to set in. So I am being a bit facetious when I say "you first" -- if it suits your risk tolerance or if you are in exigent circumstances, sure thing, who am I to judge? But it doesn't suit my personal risk tolerance at this point in my life. (Maybe ask me in a few years when I'm old and sick ...)
2) In terms of "transhumanism" more generally ... I see great dangers and I fear what a society of transhumans combined with humans would be capable of (if we haven't started down that road already). If transhumans really become vastly superior to humans, what will the relationship between them and the old-stock humans look like? Yuval Noah Hariri said something to the effect of, the only model for this version of the world we have is the current relationship between humans and animals -- the track record there is not exactly great ...
So, it's partially the risks from the tech itself, and partially the downstream consequences for society.
Granted I'm disinclined to propagate the human race anyway, so I guess I may actually be ahead of you.
In any case, if you don't care about the risks and are just concerned with the meaning about why we propagate and what the point of anything is, then I must point out that I'm not super interested in discussing this. I was more getting at why someone would oppose transhumanism, but this doesn't seem tone a meaningful critique of transhumanism as much as it is a sort of pessimism about why we do anything or we should propagate at all.
Heck, it's trying to get the body to get rid of viruses. One particular type of virus (retroviruses) do "hack or mix our DNA".
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
"Sending mRNA to human cells to produce viral proteins" describe how all of the other vaccines work. You're saying that this one uses DNA. I don't know if that's a typo or if that's an important difference. However from what I understand, the two other vaccines people are talking about don't change any of the genetic material in your cells. They just send other genetic material that makes use of the translation equipment in some of your cells. It sits next to your existing genetic material, and then (I'm guessing?) just goes away.
https://www.genetherapynet.com/viral-vector/adenoviruses.htm...
[edit] To clarify, it doesn't alter DNA, so much as co-opt DNA/RNA replication mechanisms. Does this cross some kind of "trans-human" threshold? I think so, but I also think clothing, reading glasses, and cell phones do the same. I see no reason to draw some kind of line in the sand here.
So, if we get a virus, we aren't human?
I'm not sure what information beyond that will actually be received and comforting to a lay audience that is skeptical.
If I want to use your printer (ribosomes) to print out some stuff (proteins), I don't need to send files (genetic instructions) to your computer (nucleus). I can just get on your wifi, send my files directly to your printer, and go home. Except I accidentally left the protein at your house. But none of the genetic material sticks around.
On the other hand, if you want to read about how software works when it actually matters, "space shuttle coding style" is fascinating.
If there's autoimmune issues that pop up when the scale goes from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions, I'll know about it ahead of time and be able to take the appropriate action, such as choosing a non-mRNA vaccine such as the adenovirus type from Astrazeneca.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
Vaccines are not 100% effective but they don't have to be. The goal here is to reduce transmission in the population to a level where the virus can no longer spread. That is only possible if enough people take the vaccine and healthy people should absolutely be in the front of that line.
This is not a purely personal choice. You have to understand that by deciding not to immunize yourself you are making a decision for everyone else.
It cannot be ruled out that the whole concept of RNA vaccines still has bugs, but it is nowhere near "it compiles, ship it now!" software betas. The process is much more risk-averse.