6 Comments
User's avatar
Washed Up Pharmacist's avatar

I need to read in depth but immunology is very hard for me. I’m beginning to think that the non specific innate immune response is due to transfection with the LNPs. Maybe?

Expand full comment
Siguna Mueller, Ph.D., Ph.D.'s avatar

I think so, too. But not only the LNPs. According to Kim et al. (the main study I am using), both the LNPs and the mRNA components are acting as adjuvants. They claim the latter is driving specific cellular immune responses. There is something to it, even though I do not agree with the "specificity" part.

Expand full comment
Washed Up Pharmacist's avatar

Hmmm maybe dsRNA etc or the synthetic nature of the mRNA itself?

Expand full comment
Siguna Mueller, Ph.D., Ph.D.'s avatar

"Residual" dsRNAs and other contaminants are thought to be beneficial in this way, lol. I.e., to just be present in sufficient amount to enable the required immune activation. It's more and more obvious that the modified mRNA was not necessary as other platforms don't use it, and, with the self-replicating ones, these are unavoidable altogether (in vivo).

Expand full comment
Washed Up Pharmacist's avatar

💯more obvious. Not only saRNA but circular RNA too. They wouldn’t be developing these options unless modRNA is a problem. That Mulroney frameshift ing article was a bomb

Expand full comment
Siguna Mueller, Ph.D., Ph.D.'s avatar

In this context, the saRNAs are already much worse, for many reasons. The circular ones have not even been on my radar recently. You are right, they are likely even worse yet!

Expand full comment