Computationally designed mRNA-launched protein nanoparticle vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both protein nanoparticle and mRNA vaccines were clinically de-risked during the COVID-19 pandemic. These vaccine modalities have complementary strengths: antigen display on protein nanoparticles can enhance the magnitude, quality, and durability of antibody responses, while mRNA vaccines can be rapidly manufactured and elicit antigen-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells. Here we leverage a computationally designed icosahedral protein nanoparticle that was redesigned for optimal secretion from eukaryotic cells to develop an mRNA-launched nanoparticle vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. The nanoparticle, which displays 60 copies of a stabilized variant of the Wuhan-Hu-1 Spike receptor binding domain (RBD), formed monodisperse, antigenically intact assemblies upon secretion from transfected cells. An mRNA vaccine encoding the secreted RBD nanoparticle elicited 5- to 28-fold higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than an mRNA vaccine encoding membrane-anchored Spike, induced higher levels of CD8 T cells than the same immunogen when delivered as an adjuvanted protein nanoparticle, and protected mice from vaccine-matched and -mismatched SARS-CoV-2 challenge. Our data establish that delivering protein nanoparticle immunogens via mRNA vaccines can combine the benefits of each modality and, more broadly, highlight the utility of computational protein design in genetic immunization strategies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".