adjuvent is not neccesary for immune response, it is nessecary for spreading out the antigen producing character among more doses, rather than using a concentration of mRNA that in itself produces enough protien to induce immune response
> adjuvent [sic] is not neccesary[sic] for immune response,
Completely false. Unless the immune system has been exposed to something similar before (e.g. SARS/MERS n.b. made up example I have no idea if the spikes of SARS or MERS are molecularly similar enough), no adjuvant means situation normal for the immune system. If there is nothing to signal to the immune system that this new antigen is bad then it will treat it as neutral suppressing any vaccine response, which is worse that if the vaccine had not been delivered at all.
>is nessecary[sic] for spreading out the antigen producing character among more doses
the point of booster shots is to ensure that antibodies are maintained at sufficient levels to fight off a real infection. If a response has been established, i guess adjuvants are not as necessary? (did biomed, but not a vaccine researcher) I have no idea if they are included or not for boosters.
> rather than using a concentration of mRNA that in itself produces enough protien[sic] to induce immune response
A high concentration won't do shit if the immune system doesn't have anything to activate it, it will just see a high concentration of irrelevant new, i.e. foreign protein.
This is Completely false.
Natural immunity does not require adjuvent.
spreading out a scarce valuable resource by use of adjuvent is a standard practice.
ANY complex not recognized by the MHC will elicit an invader response, the immediate vigor of this response is attenuated by inclusion of adjuvent in the final formulation of the vaccine. we would all die 100% of the time if adjuvent was required to mount immune response, to infection.
> we would all die 100% of the time if adjuvent was required to mount immune response, to infection.
Indeed, but it is required for a vaccine to function properly.
without adjuvent many vaccines would need much greater concentration of the antigen producing component.
by inducing an attenuated response, using an adjuvent, you can manufacture many more doses of the vaccine using less mRNA in each dose.
the substances you are mentioning are features of live pathogens and are being mimicked by adjuvents.
It is true that if you have a strong adjuvant, you could get away with smaller doses of the antigen, which is good for pandemic vaccines.
Source: Charles Janeway, "Approaching the asymptote? Evolution and revolution in immunology," http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/54/1.long
P.S. I wrote a COVID adjuvant grant this past spring, and my mother studies immunological tolerance. So if you disagree can you at least share some sources?
you are wrong, and its right in front of you.
please tell me about KNO3
please tell me about priming and boosting.
please tell me about innate humoral response, and cell mediated response.
i see you are still a student.
once again vaccines are not obligated to adjuvents
adjuvents increase the response to a signal allowing a weaker signal to evoke a response of threshold level.
the economic and practical bounds incurred by the expense of the immunogenic product are offset by thus exploiting, the biological property of amplification we can spread out the materials to make many more doses of vaccine requireing fewer "boost" dosages.
the big angle to work is the lack of cytoplasmic Vir-mRNA of immunogenic character. the current S protien production system is a get it shipping now product, with more work we can produce a sequence that stimulates cytoplasmic processes also involved in the induction of primary immune response.
the current sequence doesnt do that.
have a look here and see where this is heading :
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27252702/
Interferon production at scale is tedious to say the least, it is superior to induce in vivo interferon dynamics, along with immunogenic antigen translation.