MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310676081 · doi:10.1016/j.omtn.2022.11.024

Formulation, inflammation, and RNA sensing impact the immunogenicity of self-amplifying RNA vaccines

2022· article· en· W4310676081 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Therapy — Nucleic Acids · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsAcuitas Therapeutics (Canada)
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCoalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
KeywordsImmunogenicityRNAInflammationVirologyImmunologyMedicineBiologyImmune systemGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To be effective, RNA vaccines require both in situ translation and the induction of an immune response to recruit cells to the site of immunization. These factors can pull in opposite directions with the inflammation reducing expression of the vaccine antigen. We investigated how formulation affects the acute systemic cytokine response to a self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccine. We compared a cationic polymer (pABOL), a lipid emulsion (nanostructured lipid carrier, NLC), and three lipid nanoparticles (LNP). After immunization, we measured serum cytokines and compared the response to induced antibodies against influenza virus. Formulations that induced a greater cytokine response induced a greater antibody response, with a significant correlation between IP-10, MCP-1, KC, and antigen-specific antibody titers. We then investigated how innate immune sensing and signaling impacted the adaptive immune response to vaccination with LNP-formulated saRNA. Mice that lacked MAVS and are unable to signal through RIG-I-like receptors had an altered cytokine response to saRNA vaccination and had significantly greater antibody responses than wild-type mice. This indicates that the inflammation induced by formulated saRNA vaccines is not solely deleterious in the induction of antibody responses and that targeting specific aspects of RNA vaccine sensing might improve the quality of the response. To be effective, RNA vaccines require both in situ translation and the induction of an immune response to recruit cells to the site of immunization. These factors can pull in opposite directions with the inflammation reducing expression of the vaccine antigen. We investigated how formulation affects the acute systemic cytokine response to a self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccine. We compared a cationic polymer (pABOL), a lipid emulsion (nanostructured lipid carrier, NLC), and three lipid nanoparticles (LNP). After immunization, we measured serum cytokines and compared the response to induced antibodies against influenza virus. Formulations that induced a greater cytokine response induced a greater antibody response, with a significant correlation between IP-10, MCP-1, KC, and antigen-specific antibody titers. We then investigated how innate immune sensing and signaling impacted the adaptive immune response to vaccination with LNP-formulated saRNA. Mice that lacked MAVS and are unable to signal through RIG-I-like receptors had an altered cytokine response to saRNA vaccination and had significantly greater antibody responses than wild-type mice. This indicates that the inflammation induced by formulated saRNA vaccines is not solely deleterious in the induction of antibody responses and that targeting specific aspects of RNA vaccine sensing might improve the quality of the response.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it