3 ms·

Well vaccines as a field is super-mega broad, there are so many pure research sub-disciplines one can choose to be an expert on due to the intersection of medic

Well vaccines as a field is super-mega broad, there are so many pure research sub-disciplines one can choose to be an expert on due to the intersection of medicine/immunology/chemistry/biology. And even those are super broad themselves. From an applied sciences standpoint again there are various disciplines depending on the particular vaccine technology - fermentation, protein purification, conjugation chemistry, formulation, drug delivery, etc, etc, etc. From an analytical chemistry/biology standpoint there are dozens more fields that come into the picture when testing. You can spend years and decades in any of these niche fields and still not probe the depths of our accumulated knowledge. And once you have a product, you get into the regulatory domain - finding the quickest and shortest path to the market - which is its own nightmare. I don't know much about the particulars of the vaccine you are referring to, but when it comes to investing, I think it is always safe to assume that all major investing firms have ready access to SMEs that can give them the scoop on any company they're interested in.

xiphias2 6y ago
The exciting thing with mRNA vaccines is that while developing the delivery platform took decades, developing the COVID vaccine itself was just 48 hours according to the CEO of both Moderna and BioNTech. Right now they have a lot of work with manufacturing (and they had lots and lots of paper work to do), but even there I think they are doing great, as they were not prepared for a pandemic. As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it.
- iguy 6y ago
  It is exciting. But what's a bit unclear (to me) is how re-usable safety testing is. Are we going to arrive at stage where we can "push to production" after this 48 hour design phase, or are we going to need months-to-years of trials for each new code?
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    There's a huge difference between months and years. The delivery platform is reusable, which is a big difference from older vaccines, where the virus that is delivered can be used only once (Sputnik-V vaccine uses 2 different delivery platforms _because of_ this. The other thing to look at is efficiency: as the vaccines can deliver mRNAs that cells express anyways in healthy people, the lesser toxicity can mean a higher likelihood of success for the drug (which is the main problem with drug development in the last 10-20 years).
- passivate 6y ago
  >As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it. While we're all cheering for its success, its important to remember that the current authorization was under the 'emergency use' clause. Also, our body continues to evolve to fight attempts by external agents to inject foreign genetic material into our cells. Whether the same platform with work on future vaccines will be known only by performing science. But as always, data >> opinion. You seem well read so you've already identified one of the key problems - the genetic code that forms the basis of the vaccine. Its not really my area, but from what I understand, dealing with synthetic RNA (RNA Mimics) is tricky since its never identical to cellular RNA. All of the associated problems will already be known to anyone working in that field, so there's nothing of value that I can add anyway.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you are refering to, as the end proteins expressed by the ribosome should be the same, even if the syntetic mRNA is optimized for increased expression compared to the non-syntatic one. At the same time the vaccines can't control which cells get the mRNA delivered as opposed to non-syntetic cells, where the cells are differentiated by their methylation and other epigenetics and gene expression control pathways, which I guess can be problematic for some cell types.
    - passivate 6y ago
      I don't think that is accurate. The spike protein that is being expressed has been modified (2p mutation) to enhance its stability. Proteins have a structure-function relationship and I believe this change in structure was done to inactivate the function of the spike protein, and merely use it as a immunogen. But I was making a different point. Even before you get to the final expression of the protein, there are various steps that need to go smoothly. The mRNA sequence is carefully engineered to dodge the body's various defenses, among other things - and this sort of engineering is not trivial - which is the point I thought you were also making with - "and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it. ". But maybe I misunderstood your original point?

xiphias2 6y ago

The exciting thing with mRNA vaccines is that while developing the delivery platform took decades, developing the COVID vaccine itself was just 48 hours according to the CEO of both Moderna and BioNTech. Right now they have a lot of work with manufacturing (and they had lots and lots of paper work to do), but even there I think they are doing great, as they were not prepared for a pandemic. As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it.

iguy 6y ago
It is exciting. But what's a bit unclear (to me) is how re-usable safety testing is. Are we going to arrive at stage where we can "push to production" after this 48 hour design phase, or are we going to need months-to-years of trials for each new code?
- xiphias2 6y ago
  There's a huge difference between months and years. The delivery platform is reusable, which is a big difference from older vaccines, where the virus that is delivered can be used only once (Sputnik-V vaccine uses 2 different delivery platforms _because of_ this. The other thing to look at is efficiency: as the vaccines can deliver mRNAs that cells express anyways in healthy people, the lesser toxicity can mean a higher likelihood of success for the drug (which is the main problem with drug development in the last 10-20 years).
passivate 6y ago
>As the drug delivery platform is working great, it seems like it can be reused (unlike with older platforms), and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it. While we're all cheering for its success, its important to remember that the current authorization was under the 'emergency use' clause. Also, our body continues to evolve to fight attempts by external agents to inject foreign genetic material into our cells. Whether the same platform with work on future vaccines will be known only by performing science. But as always, data >> opinion. You seem well read so you've already identified one of the key problems - the genetic code that forms the basis of the vaccine. Its not really my area, but from what I understand, dealing with synthetic RNA (RNA Mimics) is tricky since its never identical to cellular RNA. All of the associated problems will already be known to anyone working in that field, so there's nothing of value that I can add anyway.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you are refering to, as the end proteins expressed by the ribosome should be the same, even if the syntetic mRNA is optimized for increased expression compared to the non-syntatic one. At the same time the vaccines can't control which cells get the mRNA delivered as opposed to non-syntetic cells, where the cells are differentiated by their methylation and other epigenetics and gene expression control pathways, which I guess can be problematic for some cell types.
  - passivate 6y ago
    I don't think that is accurate. The spike protein that is being expressed has been modified (2p mutation) to enhance its stability. Proteins have a structure-function relationship and I believe this change in structure was done to inactivate the function of the spike protein, and merely use it as a immunogen. But I was making a different point. Even before you get to the final expression of the protein, there are various steps that need to go smoothly. The mRNA sequence is carefully engineered to dodge the body's various defenses, among other things - and this sort of engineering is not trivial - which is the point I thought you were also making with - "and the hardest part of developing new mRNA vaccines is to research the genetic code to put in it. ". But maybe I misunderstood your original point?