4 ms·

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapies. https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/ https://www.genomicseducation.hee.n

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapies. https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/ https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vacci...

jdthedisciple 5y ago
Depending on the definition, they are or aren't. There seems to be a disagreement. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947/covid-mrna-vaccines-are-a-form-of-gene-therapy/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947...
- creativenolo 5y ago
  The NHS article states "The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy." The article you have posted explains what gene therapy is confidently, but it doesn't explain, or reference particularly well, why an mRNA would be considered gene therapy or why it would alter genes.
  - AnthonBerg 5y ago
    We should strive to take jthedisciple’s comments at face value, and literally. From there we will arrive at a charitable interpretation. Here is an example where Harvard Stem Cell Institute discusses mRNA therapy as gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-therapies https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t... The Wikipedia entry on gene therapy discusses mRNA therapy under the Non-viral section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy – “BioNTech, Moderna Therapeutics and CureVac focus on delivery of mRNA payloads, which are necessarily non-viral delivery problems.” Indeed the mRNA vaccines carry a genetic payload – a segment of viral genome which is modified using a genetic perspective and from a position of genomic understanding. mRNA is a temporary and deliberately non-permanent message carrier substrate; Here too, humanity’s employment of such facts can be interpreted as scientific knowledge of the matters of the genes. If we choose to call mRNA vaccines gene therapy – which they are less clearly than other techniques – then it is certainly the better gene therapy for purposefully avoiding permanent alteration of the genome in the subject to be treated.
    - klmr 5y ago
      > Here is an example where Harvard Stem Cell Institute discusses mRNA therapy as gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t... And the very next paragraph (in its heading, no less) makes it clear that RNA therapies and gene therapies are distinct, i.e. that RNA therapies are not (necessarily) gene therapies. The Wikipedia article you cite doesn’t mention mRNA vaccines. The single mention of “mRNA payloads” does not necessarily refer to vaccines (there are other RNA therapies, and some of these might be gene therapies, although I don’t think they are) — but even if it did the sentence’s inclusion in this article is debatable at the very least. Fundamentally, gene therapies always work by modifying the host genome. mRNA vaccines don’t do this (nor do any other RNA therapy approaches that I’m aware of).
      - AnthonBerg 5y ago
        I assure you thay we are in technical agreement! I’d like to point towards my words on mRNA vaccines precisely and purposefully not modifying the genome. Re. this: ” And the very next paragraph (in its heading, no less) makes it clear that RNA therapies and gene therapies are distinct, i.e. that RNA therapies are not (necessarily) gene therapies.” For the avoidance of doubt and my greater understanding, may I ask for a quote of paragraph being referred to? Edit, update: That paragraph aside, the article index does indeed distinguish between RMA therapy and gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs
        klmr 5y ago
        Title: “Manufacturing gene and RNA therapies” “A challenge for both gene and RNA therapies is getting the nucleic acid molecules into a cell. […]”
        AnthonBerg 5y ago
        Thank you! I want to explicitly state my agreement, due to the sensitivity of nuance here.
- klmr 5y ago
  No, it doesn’t depend on the definition. This isn’t a point of contention amongst experts. The article you cite is simply wrong (in particular, its claim about the classification of mRNA vaccines as gene therapy in Europe is categorically false), it fundamentally misunderstands how mRNA vaccines work, and it misrepresents the sources it cites supposedly in support.
  - AnthonBerg 5y ago
    The swfinstitute.org link aside, there are different ways to define the term. It isn’t jthedisciple who is making the definition; It is a simple fact that there are two major definitions on the Wikipedia entry for gene therapy: Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect [1] or the treatment of disease by repairing or reconstructing defective genetic material. [2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy [1] – Kaji, Eugene H. (7 February 2001). "Gene and Stem Cell Therapies". JAMA. 285 (5): 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.5.545 https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.5.545 – ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 11176856. [2] Ermak G (2015). Emerging Medical Technologies. World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-4675-81-9 — mRNA vaccines are certainly a more ambiguous fit under the term “gene therapy”, but it can be parsed as such that they are a genetic modification of a viral cell to produce a therapeutic effect. With slightly more ambiguity but not at all without reason, we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material”. Even if the definition includes the word “defective”. To me the crux of the statement does not appear in the genetic material needing to be “defective”. Via metaphor: We may be unprotected from the elements by our shelter being defective, but it may also occur that shelter is simply missing, such as our immune response to SARS-CoV-2. I personally wouldn’t call mRNA vaccines gene therapy, but it’s more because it can induce misunderstandings on permanence rather than because of the un-parseability of the smaller term under the larger definition.
    - klmr 5y ago
      > It is a simple fact that there are two major definitions on the Wikipedia entry for gene therapy: I read this as a single definition rather than two distinct ones but, regardless of how you read this, mRNA vaccines do neither of these two things. > it can be parsed as such that they are a genetic modification of a viral cell No, it cannot be parsed like this. “Genetic modification” has a specific, technical meaning and mRNA vaccines do not perform it. Furthermore, I’m not even sure what you mean by “viral cell”, since viruses don’t form cells (they form virions). Do you mean a host cell infected by a virus? Because that doesn’t apply here: mRNA vaccines don’t specifically act on infected cells, they act on healthy cells. > we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material” Again, we cannot do this, because it’s flat out incorrect. What does “reconstructing genetic material” even mean in this context? There’s no defect, so there’s nothing to reconstruct, and the mRNA vaccine does not do so anyway since, again, it does not modify the host genome. — In general I’ll note that several sentences in your answer simply make no biological sense and use made-up terms.
logicchains 5y ago
It's been found that through reverse transcriptase it's actually possible for the RNA from covid infections to be integrated into the genes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/ . If covid itself can do it, can the mRNA vaccines do it too?
- klmr 5y ago
  These findings are probably spurious and caused by artefacts of their methods rather than real. In particular, the preprint you’ve linked to had glaring methodological flaws [1]. A revised version of the article [2] has addressed some, but notably not all of these flaws. More importantly, though, all the paper shows is that under specific lab conditions (which are distinct from conditions in living cells!), viral RNA might integrate into the host genome (subject to the caveats about artefacts). In particular, it requires active retrotransposons [3], which are elements that are inactive in cells in the body. Unless a virus brings its own retrotransposon (and SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t), it can’t integrate into the host genome. But even if SARS-CoV-2 did, they mRNA vaccine definitely doesn’t include a retrotransposon. [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.434119v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.434119v1 [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 [3] https://twitter.com/GeneticsMike7/status/1404927629812240388 https://twitter.com/GeneticsMike7/status/1404927629812240388
AnthonBerg 5y ago
jthedisciple does not make the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapies – note the or: “the same applies to novel vaccines or mRNA gene therapies“

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapies. https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/ https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vacci...

jdthedisciple 5y ago

Depending on the definition, they are or aren't. There seems to be a disagreement. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947/covid-mrna-vaccines-are-a-form-of-gene-therapy/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947...

creativenolo 5y ago
The NHS article states "The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy." The article you have posted explains what gene therapy is confidently, but it doesn't explain, or reference particularly well, why an mRNA would be considered gene therapy or why it would alter genes.
- AnthonBerg 5y ago
  We should strive to take jthedisciple’s comments at face value, and literally. From there we will arrive at a charitable interpretation. Here is an example where Harvard Stem Cell Institute discusses mRNA therapy as gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-therapies https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t... The Wikipedia entry on gene therapy discusses mRNA therapy under the Non-viral section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy – “BioNTech, Moderna Therapeutics and CureVac focus on delivery of mRNA payloads, which are necessarily non-viral delivery problems.” Indeed the mRNA vaccines carry a genetic payload – a segment of viral genome which is modified using a genetic perspective and from a position of genomic understanding. mRNA is a temporary and deliberately non-permanent message carrier substrate; Here too, humanity’s employment of such facts can be interpreted as scientific knowledge of the matters of the genes. If we choose to call mRNA vaccines gene therapy – which they are less clearly than other techniques – then it is certainly the better gene therapy for purposefully avoiding permanent alteration of the genome in the subject to be treated.
  - klmr 5y ago
    > Here is an example where Harvard Stem Cell Institute discusses mRNA therapy as gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t... And the very next paragraph (in its heading, no less) makes it clear that RNA therapies and gene therapies are distinct, i.e. that RNA therapies are not (necessarily) gene therapies. The Wikipedia article you cite doesn’t mention mRNA vaccines. The single mention of “mRNA payloads” does not necessarily refer to vaccines (there are other RNA therapies, and some of these might be gene therapies, although I don’t think they are) — but even if it did the sentence’s inclusion in this article is debatable at the very least. Fundamentally, gene therapies always work by modifying the host genome. mRNA vaccines don’t do this (nor do any other RNA therapy approaches that I’m aware of).
    - AnthonBerg 5y ago
      I assure you thay we are in technical agreement! I’d like to point towards my words on mRNA vaccines precisely and purposefully not modifying the genome. Re. this: ” And the very next paragraph (in its heading, no less) makes it clear that RNA therapies and gene therapies are distinct, i.e. that RNA therapies are not (necessarily) gene therapies.” For the avoidance of doubt and my greater understanding, may I ask for a quote of paragraph being referred to? Edit, update: That paragraph aside, the article index does indeed distinguish between RMA therapy and gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs
      - klmr 5y ago
        Title: “Manufacturing gene and RNA therapies” “A challenge for both gene and RNA therapies is getting the nucleic acid molecules into a cell. […]”
        AnthonBerg 5y ago
        Thank you! I want to explicitly state my agreement, due to the sensitivity of nuance here.
klmr 5y ago
No, it doesn’t depend on the definition. This isn’t a point of contention amongst experts. The article you cite is simply wrong (in particular, its claim about the classification of mRNA vaccines as gene therapy in Europe is categorically false), it fundamentally misunderstands how mRNA vaccines work, and it misrepresents the sources it cites supposedly in support.
- AnthonBerg 5y ago
  The swfinstitute.org link aside, there are different ways to define the term. It isn’t jthedisciple who is making the definition; It is a simple fact that there are two major definitions on the Wikipedia entry for gene therapy: Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect [1] or the treatment of disease by repairing or reconstructing defective genetic material. [2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy [1] – Kaji, Eugene H. (7 February 2001). "Gene and Stem Cell Therapies". JAMA. 285 (5): 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.5.545 https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.5.545 – ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 11176856. [2] Ermak G (2015). Emerging Medical Technologies. World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-4675-81-9 — mRNA vaccines are certainly a more ambiguous fit under the term “gene therapy”, but it can be parsed as such that they are a genetic modification of a viral cell to produce a therapeutic effect. With slightly more ambiguity but not at all without reason, we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material”. Even if the definition includes the word “defective”. To me the crux of the statement does not appear in the genetic material needing to be “defective”. Via metaphor: We may be unprotected from the elements by our shelter being defective, but it may also occur that shelter is simply missing, such as our immune response to SARS-CoV-2. I personally wouldn’t call mRNA vaccines gene therapy, but it’s more because it can induce misunderstandings on permanence rather than because of the un-parseability of the smaller term under the larger definition.
  - klmr 5y ago
    > It is a simple fact that there are two major definitions on the Wikipedia entry for gene therapy: I read this as a single definition rather than two distinct ones but, regardless of how you read this, mRNA vaccines do neither of these two things. > it can be parsed as such that they are a genetic modification of a viral cell No, it cannot be parsed like this. “Genetic modification” has a specific, technical meaning and mRNA vaccines do not perform it. Furthermore, I’m not even sure what you mean by “viral cell”, since viruses don’t form cells (they form virions). Do you mean a host cell infected by a virus? Because that doesn’t apply here: mRNA vaccines don’t specifically act on infected cells, they act on healthy cells. > we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material” Again, we cannot do this, because it’s flat out incorrect. What does “reconstructing genetic material” even mean in this context? There’s no defect, so there’s nothing to reconstruct, and the mRNA vaccine does not do so anyway since, again, it does not modify the host genome. — In general I’ll note that several sentences in your answer simply make no biological sense and use made-up terms.

logicchains 5y ago

It's been found that through reverse transcriptase it's actually possible for the RNA from covid infections to be integrated into the genes: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/ . If covid itself can do it, can the mRNA vaccines do it too?

klmr 5y ago
These findings are probably spurious and caused by artefacts of their methods rather than real. In particular, the preprint you’ve linked to had glaring methodological flaws [1]. A revised version of the article [2] has addressed some, but notably not all of these flaws. More importantly, though, all the paper shows is that under specific lab conditions (which are distinct from conditions in living cells!), viral RNA might integrate into the host genome (subject to the caveats about artefacts). In particular, it requires active retrotransposons [3], which are elements that are inactive in cells in the body. Unless a virus brings its own retrotransposon (and SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t), it can’t integrate into the host genome. But even if SARS-CoV-2 did, they mRNA vaccine definitely doesn’t include a retrotransposon. [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.434119v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.434119v1 [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 [3] https://twitter.com/GeneticsMike7/status/1404927629812240388 https://twitter.com/GeneticsMike7/status/1404927629812240388

AnthonBerg 5y ago

jthedisciple does not make the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapies – note the or: “the same applies to novel vaccines or mRNA gene therapies“