logo
mRNA vaccine technology makes headway via Pitt, Penn State research

mRNA vaccine technology makes headway via Pitt, Penn State research

Miami Herald11 hours ago

A new kind of mRNA vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and Penn State University could be cheaper to produce and offer a greater level of immunity across multiple variants of the virus.
The news comes as mRNA vaccines have been targeted by the Trump administration's recent funding cuts, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all members of the expert vaccine panel the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine safety and eligibility guidelines.
Results of the Pitt study, tested in a small group of mice, were published in npj Vaccines, a journal associated with Nature, on June 3. It's considered a proof-of-concept study and will require more research until human clinical trials are possible.
Continual mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus - the virus that causes COVID-19 - has presented challenges for scientists' ability to forecast a dominant variant and tailor vaccines effectively, requiring recalibration each year depending on what is currently circulating.
"This study demonstrated two key aspects," said Suresh Kuchipudi, senior author on the paper and chair of infectious diseases and microbiology at Pitt's School of Public Health, "that we can produce mRNA vaccines with much less mRNA required, that will significantly lower the cost of the vaccines."
And, he said, "It is also possible that with mRNA vaccines, we can provide broad protection across multiple versions of the virus without needing to constantly update."
This was possible because of a design called a trans-amplifying vaccine. In traditional mRNA vaccines, a single molecule of RNA - a kind of code that creates viral proteins in the body - is included to help the body recognize and fight off viruses.
Amplifying RNA vaccines use two components: that viral protein, as well as another component that helps enhance the mRNA signal. In trans-amplifying mRNA vaccines, those two components are encoded separately, allowing for more flexibility in design and potentially fewer side effects, though the latter needs further study.
And instead of using code from one circulating variant, the trans-amplifying vaccine uses code from a "consensus spike protein," meaning it includes mRNA that is conserved across multiple variants, allowing it to provide broader immunity.
"After several years, we have seen multiple variants emerge," said Kuchipudi. "If you look at the genetic sequence of the spike protein among all these variants, certain parts are conserved across all. We can design a spike protein that can broadly cover known variants."
The new formulation also includes a component called a replicase, which helps to generate a signal in the body with a lower dose of mRNA. Researchers used a replicase based on the Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus (VEEV).
"We chose the VEEV replicase because it's a well-studied enzyme known for its ability to amplify target mRNA efficiently," said Kuchipudi in an email. "In our system, it boosts the expression of the vaccine antigen (SARS-CoV-2) without requiring a high starting dose."
They also conducted safety studies and found the VEEV replicase did not affect the body's original cells in a negative way.
Scientists then measured the presence of antibodies in the injected mice to see how their new vaccine formulation compared to the traditional mRNA vaccine.
The mice showed immunity comparable to the original COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and with 40 times less mRNA used.
Moderna's current Spikevax formulation is given at 50 micrograms per dose for adults, and Pfizer/BioNTech's Comirnaty contains 30 micrograms (ug) per dose. This could be why many people who received the Moderna vaccine reported more side effects.
The trans-amplifying vaccine, by contrast, was given at 20 ug of the VEEV replicase and 0.5 ug of the consensus spike protein mRNA, as well as a lower dose formulation at 20 ugs and 0.05 ugs, respectively.
This vaccine could offer greater flexibility and be more cost efficient than the existing COVID vaccines, said Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.
"I think it's a worthwhile study," he said.
The study is also an example of how much research goes into a product like a vaccine before it becomes available to the public - and this one is still early in the developmental process. Kuchipudi said the team wants to delve deeper into learning more about potential side effects.
"We did some early mouse studies and saw no apparent side effects," said Kuchipudi. "We plan to conduct more in-depth safety studies in mice next, focusing on immune responses, inflammation, and any potential off-target effects," or unpredictable side effects that might occur other than at the injection site, or what's typically associated with getting a vaccine.
But in the current political climate, it may be harder for scientists to further their research on these kinds of vaccines.
On May 28, President Trump rescinded its contract with Moderna, per Reuters reporting. That included more than $700 million in federal monies for vaccine research and development for diseases like bird flu.
In a statement to Reuters, an HHS spokesperson said that "after a comprehensive internal review, the agency had determined that the project did not meet the scientific standards or safety expectations required for continued federal investment."
Although mRNA vaccines have been around since the 1990s, they have been the face of intense scrutiny after their development was fast-tracked via Operation Warp Speed, the government-backed push to get COVID-19 vaccines into the hands of the public during a deadly pandemic.
To date, they have saved 3.2 million lives, said Hotez.
"What you should be focusing on, if there are ways you think you can improve the technology, that's what you have to incentivize," he said.
The Pitt and Penn State study is illustrative of that, he said. "This is an example of heading toward 2.0."
But Hotez is worried about deprioritization of this kind of research in the coming years, especially as infectious disease surveillance infrastructure, including staffing, has been cut, leaving officials in a weaker position to understand and defend against future viruses.
"I think the FDA is prematurely shutting down mRNA technology when it has enormous promise," he said. "It's a relatively safe vaccine. Every vaccine technology has strengths and weaknesses ... to toss it out the window for ideological reasons makes no sense."
_____
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge rules some NIH grant cuts illegal, saying he's never seen such discrimination in 40 years
Judge rules some NIH grant cuts illegal, saying he's never seen such discrimination in 40 years

Los Angeles Times

timean hour ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Judge rules some NIH grant cuts illegal, saying he's never seen such discrimination in 40 years

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Monday it was illegal for the Trump administration to cancel several hundred research grants, adding that the cuts raise serious questions about racial discrimination. U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts said the administration's process was 'arbitrary and capricious' and that it did not follow long-held government rules and standards when it abruptly canceled grants deemed to focus on gender identity or diversity, equity and inclusion. In a hearing Monday on two cases calling for the grants to be restored, the judge pushed government lawyers to offer a formal definition of DEI, questioning how grants could be canceled for that reason when some were designed to study health disparities as Congress had directed. Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, went on to address what he called 'a darker aspect' to the cases, calling it 'palpably clear' that what was behind the government actions was 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.' After 40 years on the bench, 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young added. He ended Monday's hearing saying, 'Have we no shame.' During his remarks ending the hearing, the judge said he would issue his written order soon. Young's decision addresses only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects the Trump administration has cut — those specifically addressed in two lawsuits filed separately this spring by 16 attorneys general from Democratic states, public health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. A full count wasn't immediately available. In the California lawsuit, filed in April with the other Democratic states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the UC system had received more than $2 billion in NIH awards in 2024 and that CSU had spent more than $90 million on NIH-funded research the same year. At the time of filing, Bonta wrote that the UC system's five health centers were awaiting action on grant proposals totaling $563 million. While Young said the funding must be restored, Monday's action was an interim step as the ruling could be appealed. The Trump administration is 'exploring all legal options' including asking the judge to stay the ruling or appealing, said Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. 'HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,' he said in an email. While the original lawsuits didn't specifically claim racial discrimination, they said the new NIH policies prohibited 'research into certain politically disfavored subjects.' In a filing this month after the lawsuits were consolidated, lawyers said the NIH did not highlight genuine concerns with the hundreds of canceled research projects studies, but instead sent 'boilerplate termination letters' to universities. The topics of research ranged widely, including cardiovascular health, sexually transmitted infections, depression, Alzheimer's and alcohol abuse in minors, among other things. Attorneys cited projects such as one tracking how medicines may work differently in people of ancestrally diverse backgrounds, and said the cuts affected more than scientists — such as potential harm to patients in a closed study of suicide treatment. Lawyers for the federal government said in a court filing earlier this month that NIH grant terminations for DEI studies were 'sufficiently reasoned,' adding later that 'plaintiffs may disagree with NIH's basis, but that does not make the basis arbitrary and capricious.' The NIH, lawyers argued, has 'broad discretion' to decide on and provide grants 'in alignment with its priorities' — which includes ending grants. Monday, Justice Department lawyer Thomas Ports Jr. pointed to 13 examples of grants related to minority health that NIH either hadn't cut or had renewed in the same time period — and said some of the cancellations were justified by the agency's judgement that the research wasn't scientifically valuable. The NIH has long been the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Neergaard writes for the Associated Press. Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this story.

Dismissed members of CDC vaccine committee call Kennedy's actions ‘destabilizing'
Dismissed members of CDC vaccine committee call Kennedy's actions ‘destabilizing'

Los Angeles Times

time2 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Dismissed members of CDC vaccine committee call Kennedy's actions ‘destabilizing'

NEW YORK — All 17 experts recently dismissed from a government vaccine advisory panel published an essay Monday decrying 'destabilizing decisions' made by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that could lead to more preventable disease spread. Kennedy last week announced he would 'retire' the entire panel that guides U.S. vaccine policy. He also quietly removed Dr. Melinda Wharton — the veteran Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official who coordinated the committee's meetings. Two days later, he named eight new people to the influential panel. The list included a scientist who criticized COVID-19 vaccines, a leading critic of pandemic-era lockdowns and someone who worked with a group widely considered to be a leading source of vaccine misinformation. 'We are deeply concerned that these destabilizing decisions, made without clear rationale, may roll back the achievements of U.S. immunization policy, impact people's access to lifesaving vaccines, and ultimately put U.S. families at risk of dangerous and preventable illnesses,' the 17 panelists wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. The new committee is scheduled to meet next week. The agenda for that meeting has not yet been posted, but a recent federal notice said votes are expected on vaccinations against flu, COVID-19, HPV, RSV and meningococcal bacteria. In addition to Wharton's removal, CDC immunization staff have been cut and agency experts who gather or present data to committee members have resigned. One, Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos, resigned after 12 years at CDC, disclosing her decision early this month in a note to members of a COVID-19 vaccines work group. Her decision came after Kennedy decided — without consulting the vaccine advisers — to pull back COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. 'My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,' she wrote in a message viewed by the Associated Press. Those CDC personnel losses will make it hard for a group of new outside advisers to quickly come up to speed and make fact-based decisions about which vaccines to recommend to the public, the former committee members said. 'The termination of all members and its leadership in a single action undermines the committee's capacity to operate effectively and efficiently, aside from raising questions about competence,' they wrote. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to the JAMA commentary, but instead pointed to Kennedy's previous comments on the committee. Kennedy, a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before becoming the U.S. government's top health official, has accused the committee of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers and of rubber-stamping vaccines. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the CDC director on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. CDC directors almost always approve those recommendations, which are widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. ACIP policies require members to state past collaborations with vaccine companies and to recuse themselves from votes in which they had a conflict of interest, but Kennedy has dismissed those safeguards as weak. Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

Senate GOP take bigger swing at Medicaid in Trump agenda bill
Senate GOP take bigger swing at Medicaid in Trump agenda bill

The Hill

time2 hours ago

  • The Hill

Senate GOP take bigger swing at Medicaid in Trump agenda bill

Senate Republicans are taking a bigger swing at Medicaid in their version of legislation to fund President Trump's domestic policy agenda and extend his first-term tax cuts. According to text released by the Senate Finance Committee late Monday, the legislation seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to providers: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in, by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Non-expansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but like the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except Alaska finance part of the state share of Medicaid funding through at least one provider tax, according to health policy research group KFF. There are 47 states and the District of Columbia with at least 1 provider tax/fee over 3.5 percent. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. The policies are designed to inflate Medicaid spending on paper to allow states to receive more federal reimbursement dollars. States pay hospitals more, which drives up their Medicaid spending, so they receive higher federal reimbursement. The states tax providers, but the tax is less than what the government is reimbursing the state. So essentially, providers and states receive federal matching funds without spending their own money. The change in the Senate bill is sure to anger Republicans who were already expressing concerns about the impact of the freeze in the House-passed version. Provider taxes have become an important lifeline for hospitals, and rural hospitals would be hit hardest by the cuts. The Senate bill also cuts certain existing state-directed payments to hospitals, which would be a significant hit to the hospitals' bottom line. The House version in contrast limited future payments, but grandfathered existing arrangements. 'These harmful proposals will impact access to all patients who are served by our nation's hospitals and health systems. These cuts will strain emergency departments as they become the family doctor to millions of newly uninsured people. Finally, the proposal will force hospitals to reconsider services or potentially close, particularly in rural areas,' said Rick Pollack, CEO of the American Hospital Association. Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries beginning at 19 years old. But the Senate version says adults with dependent children older than 14 will also have to prove they work, attend school or perform community service for 80 hours a month, while the House-passed version would exempt all adults with dependent children.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store