The DOI matches its Crossref record; 267 of the 267 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 25 of the 231 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation
Open accessAbstract
Over the past several decades, messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines have progressed from a scepticism-inducing idea to clinical reality. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the most rapid vaccine development in history, with mRNA vaccines at the forefront of those efforts. Although it is now clear that mRNA vaccines can rapidly and safely protect patients from infectious disease, additional research is required to optimize mRNA design, intracellular delivery and applications beyond SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis. In this Review, we describe the technologies that underlie mRNA vaccines, with an emphasis on lipid nanoparticles and other non-viral delivery vehicles. We also overview the pipeline of mRNA vaccines against various infectious disease pathogens and discuss key questions for the future application of this breakthrough vaccine platform. The COVID-19 pandemic has established mRNA vaccines as a rapid, effective and safe approach for the protection of individuals from infectious disease. Here, Whitehead and colleagues review the principles of mRNA vaccine design, synthesis and delivery, assessing recent progress and key issues in the development of mRNA vaccines for a range of infectious diseases.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review describes the principles of mRNA vaccine design, lipid nanoparticle and other delivery systems, and clinical translation for infectious diseases, with emphasis on the rapid COVID-19 vaccine effort. It concludes that mRNA vaccines are a versatile and validated platform but still require optimization in delivery, durability, safety, variant coverage, and global access.
Key findings
- mRNA vaccines moved from a scepticism-inducing idea to clinical reality, and COVID-19 catalysed the fastest vaccine development in history; as of 18 June 2021, 185 COVID-19 vaccine candidates were preclinical and 102 were in clinical trials, including 19 mRNA vaccines.
- BNT162b2 showed 95% overall efficacy in phase III trials involving 43,548 participants, with 90–100% efficacy across subgroups; mRNA-1273 showed 94.1% efficacy in phase III trials involving 30,420 volunteers, and two doses of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 were 90% effective in real-world conditions among 3,950 healthcare personnel, first responders, and other frontline workers.
- CureVac’s CVnCoV demonstrated only 47% efficacy in phase IIb/III trials involving 40,000 participants across ten countries; interim analysis attributed the modest efficacy to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, with 57% of sequenced cases caused by variants of concern.
- Lipid nanoparticles are the most clinically advanced mRNA delivery vehicles and typically contain an ionizable lipid, cholesterol, a helper phospholipid, and a PEGylated lipid; modified nucleosides such as N1-methylpseudouridine are used in BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 to avoid innate immune recognition and improve translation.
Methods
- Narrative review, not a primary experimental study; it synthesizes published preclinical and clinical literature on mRNA vaccine design, delivery vehicles, and infectious disease applications.
- Data include clinical trial tables for mRNA vaccines against infectious diseases beyond COVID-19 and against SARS-CoV-2, with a stated snapshot as of 18 June 2021.
- Main analysis is qualitative synthesis of mRNA structure and synthesis, lipid/polymer/peptide/emulsion delivery systems, disease-specific vaccine progress, and key issues; no systematic search, meta-analysis, or primary data collection is described.
Limitations
- The paper states that the duration of antibody response is complex, varies by antigen, and will require longer-term data for comprehensive understanding.
- The paper states that mechanisms remain unclear for several issues, including vaccine-associated enhanced disease in RSV, the thermostability of CVnCoV and ARCoV, endosomal escape for some delivery systems, and allergic reactions potentially linked to PEGylated lipids.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative review with a June 2021 data cutoff, it does not systematically assess study quality and its clinical landscape is rapidly evolving beyond the variants and vaccines discussed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
163 Not checked yet · 29 Own interpretation · 23 No basis given · 9 Partly supported · 6 Supported · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“higher frequency of fever, fatigue and chills in participants than BNT162b2 (ref.124)”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [124] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
The Systemic events section says responses to BNT162b2 were milder than to BNT162b1 and gives a substantially lower fever frequency after the second 30 µg dose. Its discussion of BNT162b1 includes chills and fatigue, and the Figure 3 caption identifies fever, chills, and fatigue as the events compared. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Pfizer and BioNTech co-developed five mRNA vaccine candidates that encode variants of the spike protein antigen119.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [119] Knezevic, I., Liu, M. A., Peden, K., Zhou, T. & Kang, H.-N. Development of mRNA vaccines: scientific and regulatory issues. Vaccines 9, 81 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction identifies a Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. It does not say the companies co-developed five candidates or that those candidates encoded variants of the spike protein antigen. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In mice, 10 ng primer and booster doses injected 28 days apart into muscle yielded a robust T cell response and IgG titres similar to those in plasma from patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (ref.136).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [136] McKay, P. F. et al. Self-amplifying RNA SARS-CoV-2 lipid nanoparticle vaccine candidate induces high neutralizing antibody titers in mice. Nat. Commun. 11, 3–9 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Methods (Animals and immunizations; page unavailable) describes intramuscular injections at weeks 0 and 4. Results (Cellular and cytokine responses; page unavailable) reports a strong IFN-γ response across doses including 0.01 μg (10 ng). But Results (saRNA LNPs induce high, Th-1 biased antibodies; page unavailable) says even the 10 ng group had higher SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG than recovered patients, rather than similar titres. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Importantly, poorly designed Zika virus vaccines can increase the infectiousness of the dengue virus154.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Zika virus
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [154] Wollner, C. J. & Richner, J. M. mRNA vaccines against flaviviruses. Vaccines 9, 1–13 (2021). source
Section 5.2 (Zika Virus; page not provided) explains that antibodies elicited by a Zika vaccine can enhance dengue infection through antibody-dependent enhancement. It reports that serum from mice given a vaccine encoding wild-type Zika proteins enhanced dengue disease in laboratory and animal studies, while a modified design largely avoided that effect. The evidence supports the claim as a potential consequence of vaccine design, not as a demonstrated outcome in vaccinated humans. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although some candidates have failed clinical trials owing to insufficient neutralizing antibody titres174, newfound structural insights into F protein conformation have revealed that vaccinating against the prefusion conformation elicits superior neutralizing antibody response175–178.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Respiratory syncytial virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [175] Crank, M. C. et al. A proof of concept for structure-based vaccine design targeting RSV in humans. Science 365, 505–509 (2019). source
- Partly supportedcites [176] McLellan, J. S. et al. Structure of RSV fusion glycoprotein trimer bound to a prefusion-specific neutralizing antibody. Science 340, 1113–1117 (2013). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports that immunization presenting native F elicited a potent prefusion-specific antibody, 5C4. It says prefusion-stabilized vaccine antigens may further improve antibody elicitation, but does not show that vaccination with prefusion F produces a superior neutralizing antibody response compared with another F conformation (passage [1], section labeled Abstract; no page supplied). (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [177] McLellan, J. S. et al. Structure-based design of a fusion glycoprotein vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus. Science 342, 592–598 (2013). source
The Immunogenicity of Antigenic Site Ø-Stabilized RSV F section reports that stabilized prefusion F elicited higher neutralizing antibody titers than postfusion F in mice and rhesus macaques. The claim reflects those comparisons; the experiments were in animals, not humans. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [178] Krarup, A. et al. A highly stable prefusion RSV F vaccine derived from structural analysis of the fusion mechanism. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–12 (2015). source
The Results section (“Immunogenicity and efficacy of prefusion RSV F protein”) reports significantly higher neutralizing-antibody titers in mice immunized with prefusion RSV F than with postfusion F, including a 10-fold difference for adjuvanted constructs. The Discussion links the stabilized prefusion protein to structural insights and likewise reports higher neutralizing titers in rodents. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Fortunately, the FDA-approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 produce cross-neutralizing antibodies against B.1.351 and P.1, as well as against other variants, suggesting that they can provide protection against them.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccines against emerging viral variants
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [208] Wang, Z. et al. mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants. Nature 592, 616–622 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Vaccine plasma binding and neutralizing activity’ section reports that plasma from recipients of either mRNA vaccine neutralized pseudoviruses carrying mutations found in emerging variants, including the three-RBD-mutation combination associated with B.1.351, but with significantly reduced potency. The Discussion names P.1 and says the tested mutations occur in these variants; it does not report neutralization of the complete P.1 variant or establish clinical protection against it. The paper also does not establish the vaccines’ FDA-approval status. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Partly supportedcites [209] Liu, Y. et al. Neutralizing activity of BNT162b2-elicited serum. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1466–1468 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Neutralizing Activity of BNT162b2-Elicited Serum” (page not provided), serum from BNT162b2 recipients neutralized viruses bearing B.1.351, P.1, and B.1.1.7 spike mutations. The paper does not test mRNA-1273, and it cautions that protection inferred from neutralization data requires real-world validation. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [210] Wu, K. et al. Serum neutralizing activity elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1468–1470 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The letter’s main text reports neutralizing activity in serum from mRNA-1273 recipients against B.1.351, P.1, and other variants, although titers were reduced against several of them. It does not test BNT162b2, and it says protection against P.1 and B.1.351 remains to be determined. The supplied copy gives no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked yetcites [211] Pegu, A. et al. Durability of mRNA-1273 vaccine–induced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Science 12, eabj4176 (2021).
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“which is about two- to fourfold more than is typically seen with more traditional vaccines214.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Safety
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [214] McNeil, M. M. et al. Risk of anaphylaxis after vaccination in children and adults. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 137, 868–878 (2016). source
The Results report 1.31 anaphylaxis cases per million doses across the vaccines studied, providing the traditional-vaccine baseline for the citing sentence. The paper predates mRNA COVID-19 vaccines; the two- to fourfold comparison uses an mRNA rate supplied by the citing document, not a rate attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have also been shown to be immunogenic in pregnant and lactating people, and neutralizing antibodies have been detected in cord blood and human milk230.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [230] Collier, A. Y. et al. Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnant and lactating women. JAMA 325, 2370–2380 (2021). source
The Discussion states that this study demonstrated neutralizing antibodies in both infant cord blood and breast milk following maternal vaccination. The cord-blood and breast-milk results also report neutralizing antibody titers after vaccination. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In preclinical studies, CureVac demonstrated that its sequence-optimized RABV-G vaccine against rabies could withstand exposure to temperatures ranging from −80 °C to +70 °C for several months243.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Access to vaccines
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [243] Stitz, L. et al. A thermostable messenger RNA based vaccine against rabies. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 11, e0006108 (2017). source
The Methods identify the RABV-G vaccine as based on CureVac’s RNActive technology and describe optimization of its mRNA vector. The Results/Discussion report preserved protection in mice after storage at −80 °C for 12 months and at +70 °C for three months. The storage durations differed by temperature, but both support the claim’s ‘several months’ wording. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“current acceptance rates of 56–75%245 may be insufficient to reach at least 80–90% coverage246, the threshold thought to be necessary for herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccine acceptance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [245] Sallam, M. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: a concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines 9, 1–15 (2021). source
Citation 245 is attached to the US acceptance-rate estimate. The Results (§3.3) report US rates of 56.9% in April and 67.0–75.0% in May, consistent with the cited 56–75% range. The 80–90% herd-immunity threshold has a separate citation and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Partly supportedcites [246] Lippi, G. & Henry, B. M. How will emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants impact herd immunity? Ann. Transl. Med. 9, 585–585 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “SARS-CoV-2 variants and herd immunity” section estimates a threshold of approximately 80% for the emerging variants, without mitigating interventions, but does not give an 80–90% range; it estimates about 70% for the earlier strain. The 56–75% US acceptance rate has a separate citation in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 72
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As in mammals, the first or second nucleotide from the 5′ end is methylated on the 2′ hydroxyl of the ribose (2′-O-methylation), which prevents recognition by cytosolic sensors of viral RNA10, and hence prevents unintended immune responses.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] Wadhwa, A., Aljabbari, A., Lokras, A., Foged, C. & Thakur, A. Opportunities and challenges in the delivery of mRNA-based vaccines. Pharmaceutics 12, 102 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1, Molecular Stabilization (page unavailable), says cap-1 and cap-2 have 2′-position methylation, that capped mRNA can evade innate immune recognition, and that cap-1 or cap-2 makes IVT mRNA less immune-stimulating. It does not specifically identify cytosolic sensors of viral RNA or establish that methylation completely prevents unintended immune responses. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Each pathogen poses a unique set of challenges, including high lethality, rapid mutations, immune evasion, new strains and variants252–258.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [252] Harvey, W. T. et al. SARS-CoV-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19, 409–424 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction reports more than three million COVID-19 deaths, and the sections on spike mutations and variants describe mutations, emerging variants, and reduced antibody neutralization. The paper does not characterize SARS-CoV-2 as having high lethality, and its Abstract describes an initial 11-month period of relative evolutionary stasis rather than unqualified rapid mutation. It addresses SARS-CoV-2, not the challenges posed by each pathogen. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [253] Boni, M. F. Vaccination and antigenic drift in influenza. Vaccine 26, C8–C14 (2008). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes influenza’s immune-escape variants, novel strains, and mutation-driven antigenic drift, including strain differences observable within a season. It does not establish high lethality, and it qualifies the timing of new strains and rapid antigenic evolution rather than presenting them as uniformly rapid. The paper addresses influenza, not the challenges posed by each pathogen. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Could not verifycites [254] Jusu, M. O. et al. Rapid establishment of a cold chain capacity of −60 °C or colder for the STRIVE Ebola vaccine trial during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. J. Infect. Dis. 217, S48–S55 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Summary and Conclusions describe challenges in storing and transporting an Ebola vaccine, not challenges posed by pathogen biology. Searches for lethality, mutation, immune evasion, and new strains or variants found no passage in our copy addressing those claims. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked yetcites [255] Panchaud, A., Stojanov, M., Ammerdorffer, A., Vouga, M. & Baud, D. Emerging role of Zika virus in adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 29, 659–694 (2016). source
- Supportedcites [256] Cuevas, J. M., Geller, R., Garijo, R., López-Aldeguer, J. & Sanjuán, R. Extremely high mutation rate of HIV-1 in vivo. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002251 (2015). source
The paper’s Abstract reports an extremely high HIV-1 mutation rate in vivo. Its Discussion links viral mutation rates to genetic diversity and the ability to evade immune responses. In this grouped citation, the paper supports the rapid-mutation challenge; it need not establish every challenge listed for every pathogen. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [257] Berndsen, Z. T. et al. Visualization of the HIV-1 Env glycan shield across scales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 28014–28025 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) says the HIV-1 Env glycan shield masks the protein from immune recognition, supporting immune evasion. The Discussion (page unavailable) suggests that glycan stabilization may enable hypermutation and escape from immune pressure, but does not establish rapid mutation. The paper does not substantiate high lethality or the emergence of new strains and variants as challenges posed by each pathogen. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [258] Kirtane, A. R. et al. Nanotechnology approaches for global infectious diseases. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 369–384 (2021). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction (p. 1) describes high mortality from several infectious diseases, and the review’s discussion of resistance (p. 7) identifies pathogen resistance as a treatment challenge. These passages support parts of the sentence, but our copy does not establish rapid mutations, immune evasion, or new strains and variants as challenges posed by each pathogen. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In comparison with serum from patients recovering from COVID-19, vaccinated macaque serum contained 15-fold higher titres of neutralizing antibodies, 348-fold more potent inhibitory activity for spike binding to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and 12-fold higher virus-neutralizing activity128.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [128] Corbett, K. S. et al. Evaluation of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in nonhuman primates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 1544–1555 (2020). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Antibody Responses after mRNA-1273 Vaccination) support all three comparisons with human convalescent-phase serum, but they come from different dose groups: the 15-fold neutralizing titer and 348-fold ACE2-binding inhibition were measured in the 100-μg group, while the 12-fold live-virus neutralization figure was measured in the 10-μg group. The sentence omits that distinction and makes the figures appear to describe the same vaccinated serum. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Of note, the neutralizing antibody titres generated by the mRNA vaccine were 50–100 times higher than those induced by purified inactivated virus and DNA vaccines in mice, and 50 times higher than a 1 mg DNA vaccine in macaques153.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Zika virus
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [153] Pardi, N. et al. Zika virus protection by a single low-dose nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccination. Nature 543, 248–251 (2017). source
The paper’s Abstract states that, in mice, neutralizing antibody titres rose to 50–100 times those induced by a single immunization with purified inactivated virus or DNA vaccines. It also reports that, in rhesus macaques, one 50 μg mRNA-LNP immunization produced titres 50 times higher than one 1 mg DNA-vaccine immunization. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In a preclinical study, two 80 µg vaccine doses delivered 21 days apart induced high neutralizing antibody titres and elicited antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in mice and pigs187.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Rabies virus
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [187] Schnee, M. et al. An mRNA vaccine encoding rabies virus glycoprotein induces protection against lethal infection in mice and correlates of protection in adult and newborn pigs. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, e0004746 (2016). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections on neutralizing titers in mice and antigen-specific T cells describe two 80 µg doses on days 0 and 21, high neutralizing antibody titers, and CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses in mice. The Results section on seroconversion in pigs reports neutralizing antibodies after two 80 µg doses three weeks apart in newborn piglets, but does not report CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses in pigs; adult pigs received three doses on days 0, 14, and 49. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the most rapid vaccine development in history, with mRNA vaccines at the forefront of those efforts.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Unlike some viral vaccines, mRNA does not integrate into the genome, obviating concerns about insertional mutagenesis5.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W. & Weissman, D. mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 261–279 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, a single mRNA vaccine can encode multiple antigens, strengthening the immune response against resilient pathogens7”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Freyn, A. W. et al. A multi-targeting, nucleoside-modified mRNA influenza virus vaccine provides broad protection in mice. Mol. Ther. 28, 1569–1584 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Successful vaccination campaigns eradicated life-threatening diseases such as smallpox and nearly eradicated polio1”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Pollard, A. J. & Bijker, E. M. A guide to vaccinology: from basic principles to new developments. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 21, 83–100 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, they require regular modification to address rapidly mutating pathogens, such as the influenza virus.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, research on MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV suggested that the antigen should be the spike protein and that its amino acid sequence should be slightly modified to lock the protein in its prefusion conformation, maximizing its immunogenicity127.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127] Corbett, K. S. et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness. Nature 586, 567–571 (2020). This study reports the development process of mRNA-1273. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, the biopharmaceutical company CureVac AG discovered that human mRNA codons rarely have A or U at the third position and patented a strategy that replaces A or U at the third position in the open reading frame with G or C21.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] von der Mülbe, F., Hoerr, I. & Pascolo, S. Pharmaceutical composition containing a stabilised mRNA optimised for translation in its coding regions. US 2015/0104476 A1 (2015).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines, in contrast, were approved 11 months after initiation, 8 months of which were spent in clinical trials.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, because UTR performance can vary by cell type, alternative UTR sequences may be used that have been optimized for the desired application and intended cell target16–18.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Sample, P. J. et al. Human 5′ UTR design and variant effect prediction from a massively parallel translation assay. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 803–809 (2019). This study designs novel UTR sequences and predicts ribosome loading using deep learning. source
- Not checked yetcites [17] Orlandini von Niessen, A. G. et al. Improving mRNA-based therapeutic gene delivery by expression-augmenting 3′ UTRs identified by cellular library screening. Mol. Ther. 27, 824–836 (2019). source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Zeng, C. et al. Leveraging mRNA sequences and nanoparticles to deliver SARS-CoV-2 antigens in vivo. Adv. Mater. 32, 2004452 (2020). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, mRNA-based vaccines were shown to be highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 and were developed and administered at unprecedented speed to millions of people globally to combat COVID-19 (Box 1).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A colossal investment was also required for each vaccine candidate, with Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna receiving $1.95 billion and $2.48 billion, respectively, from the US government through its Operation Warp Speed initiative (see Related links).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These vaccines, initially developed by Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna, have validated the platform and stimulated substantial interest in the application of mRNA for both prophylactic and therapeutic indications.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These studies enabled Moderna to generate the mRNA-1273 sequence in 2 days and start phase I trials in 66 days127.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127] Corbett, K. S. et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness. Nature 586, 567–571 (2020). This study reports the development process of mRNA-1273. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Further, the 5′ cap protects the mRNA sterically from degradation by exonucleases, and it works synergistically with the poly(A) tail at the 3′ end, poly(A) binding proteins and translation initiation factor proteins to circularize mRNA and recruit ribosomes for initiating translation10,11.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Wadhwa, A., Aljabbari, A., Lokras, A., Foged, C. & Thakur, A. Opportunities and challenges in the delivery of mRNA-based vaccines. Pharmaceutics 12, 102 (2020). source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Linares-Fernández, S., Lacroix, C., Exposito, J. Y. & Verrier, B. Tailoring mRNA vaccine to balance innate/adaptive immune response. Trends Mol. Med. 26, 311–323 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, mRNA-based vaccines were shown to be highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 and were developed and administered at unprecedented speed to millions of people globally to combat COVID-19 (Box 1).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV vaccines required about 2 years of development before entering phase I trials259 and have yet to be approved.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [259] Kim, Y. C., Dema, B. & Reyes-Sandoval, A. COVID-19 vaccines: breaking record times to first-in-human trials. NPJ Vaccines 5, 34 (2020). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As of 18 June 2021, 185 COVID-19 vaccine candidates were in preclinical development and an additional 102 had entered clinical trials (see Related links).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Poly(A) tails of >100 bp are optimal for therapeutic mRNAs; however, the DNA sequences that encode these long poly(A) stretches can destabilize the DNA plasmids used for transcription.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these innovations have overcome significant manufacturing bottlenecks and facilitated the development of a simple, cost-effective and scalable one-step mRNA synthesis process.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The poly(A) tail is encoded in the DNA template, which eliminates reaction steps and reduces overall production time and material loss29.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Principles of mRNA design and synthesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J. & Weissman, D. Recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 65, 14–20 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“90% efficacy in real-world conditions in USA132”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [132] Thompson, M. G. et al. Interim estimates of vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers — eight U.S. locations, December 2020–March 2021. Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 70, 495–500 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The attached spike protein is then cut open by the cell’s transmembrane serine protease 2, which induces a conformational change that exposes the spike protein’s fusion peptide and facilitates fusion with the cell or endosomal membrane118.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [118] Shang, J. et al. Cell entry mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11727–11734 (2020). This study describes the cell-entry mechanism of SARS-CoV-2. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, inside the body, it is engulfed by cells of the innate immune system and degraded by nucleases.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Delivery vehicles for mRNA vaccines
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“anti-spike IgG, anti-RBD IgG and serum-neutralization titres comparable to convalescent serum133”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] Kremsner, P. et al. Phase 1 assessment of the safety and immunogenicity of an mRNA- lipid nanoparticle vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 in human volunteers. medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.09.20228551v1 (2020). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In preclinical studies in rhesus macaques, two 100 μg doses of BNT162b2 delivered 21 days apart elicited neutralizing antibody titres 10.2–18.0 times higher than convalescent patient serum as well as strong CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses122.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [122] Vogel, A. B. et al. BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2. Nature 592, 283–289 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“same formulation as mRNA-1273”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Both candidates were well tolerated and efficacious, but only the BNT162b2 vaccine advanced to phase II/III trials owing to its milder systemic and local adverse reactions124.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124] Walsh, E. E. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based covid-19 vaccine candidates. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 2439–2450 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The vaccine uses the ionizable lipid SM-102 to formulate LNPs that encapsulate an N1-methylpseudouridine-modified mRNA. The sequence encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein with two proline substitutions that confer the prefusion conformation127.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127] Corbett, K. S. et al. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness. Nature 586, 567–571 (2020). This study reports the development process of mRNA-1273. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a mass vaccination campaign involving 3,159,136 participants in Israel, two doses of BNT162b2 were 94% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19, 87% effective at preventing hospitalizations and 92% effective at preventing the onset of severe COVID-19 (ref.126).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [126] Dagan, N. et al. BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1412–1423 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another study used LNPs to deliver a 50 ng dose of nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding three conserved influenza proteins: neuraminidase, nucleoprotein and matrix-2 ion channel protein (Fig. 4) in addition to the haemagglutinin stalk7. Incredibly, this minuscule mRNA dose generated broadly protective antibodies and protected mice from an extraordinarily large viral challenge (500× LD50).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Influenza viruses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Freyn, A. W. et al. A multi-targeting, nucleoside-modified mRNA influenza virus vaccine provides broad protection in mice. Mol. Ther. 28, 1569–1584 (2020). source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In preclinical studies, CV2CoV showed 1.8-fold higher protein expression than CVnCoV in vitro, and elicited high titres of cross-neutralizing antibodies against the B.1.1.7, B.1.1.298 and B.1.351 variants in rats134.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [134] Roth, N. et al. CV2CoV, an enhanced mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate, supports higher protein expression and improved immunogenicity in rats. bioRxiv, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.13.443734v1.full (2021).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In transgenic mice expressing human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, doses of 2 µg and 10 µg produced strong T cell responses, high IgG titres and protected mice from SARS-CoV-2 infection137.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [137] de Alwis, R. et al. A single dose of self-transcribing and replicating RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine produces protective adaptive immunity in mice. Mol. Ther. 29, 1970–1983 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Adverse effects were limited to pain at the injection site, redness, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, fatigue and chills/common-cold-like symptoms, indicating that the vaccine is safe and well tolerated150.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Influenza viruses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [150] Feldman, R. A. et al. mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials. Vaccine 37, 3326–3334 (2019). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the first demonstration of an effective mRNA vaccine against influenza in 2012, three intradermal injections of 80 µg RNActive-mRNA encoding haemagglutinin from the PR8 H1N1 strain induced homologous and heterologous immunity against H1N1 and H5N1 strains, respectively, and protected the mice against a lethal viral dose (10× LD50)141.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Influenza viruses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [141] Petsch, B. et al. Protective efficacy of in vitro synthesized, specific mRNA vaccines against influenza A virus infection. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 1210–1216 (2012). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CVnCoV uses LNPs formulated using an ionizable lipid from Acuitas Therapeutics (potentially ALC-0315) and an unmodified mRNA sequence encoding a full-length spike protein with the two proline substitutions133.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] Kremsner, P. et al. Phase 1 assessment of the safety and immunogenicity of an mRNA- lipid nanoparticle vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 in human volunteers. medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.09.20228551v1 (2020). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In phase I clinical trials, primer and booster injections of a 12 μg dose of CVnCoV administered 28 days apart generated neutralizing antibodies similar to those in plasma from patients who were convalescing from COVID-19 and was well tolerated133.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] Kremsner, P. et al. Phase 1 assessment of the safety and immunogenicity of an mRNA- lipid nanoparticle vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 in human volunteers. medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.09.20228551v1 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the ARCT-021 dose is higher than the LNP-nCoVsaRNA dose, no booster is required, ensuring that recipients are fully vaccinated after a single injection.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The broadly protective antibodies conferred homologous immunity against Cal09 H1N1, heterologous immunity against PR8 H1N1 and heterosubtypic immunity against H5N1 in mice and protected them against a lethal viral challenge149.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Influenza viruses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [149] Pardi, N. et al. Nucleoside-modified mRNA immunization elicits influenza virus hemagglutinin stalk-specific antibodies. Nat. Commun. 9, 3361 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In two separate phase I trials in 2016, Moderna evaluated two influenza candidates. These vaccines were dosed via two intramuscular injections of LNPs encapsulating nucleoside-modified mRNA expressing full-length haemagglutinin from H10N8 and H7N9 (Table 1).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Influenza viruses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [147] Bahl, K. et al. Preclinical and clinical demonstration of immunogenicity by mrna vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses. Mol. Ther. 25, 1316–1327 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CureVac’s candidate vaccine CVnCoV is stable for 3 months at 5 °C and 24 h at room temperature (see Related links).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Related links
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several preclinical studies have delivered mRNA vaccines encoding HIV proteins using multiple delivery vehicles, including cationic nanoemulsions109,161, DOTAP/DOPE liposomes162, polymers84,163,164 and ionizable LNPs165,166, but they have had varied success.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > HIV
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [109] Brito, L. A. et al. A cationic nanoemulsion for the delivery of next-generation RNA vaccines. Mol. Ther. 22, 2118–2129 (2014). source
- Not checked yetcites [161] Bogers, W. M. et al. Potent immune responses in rhesus macaques induced by nonviral delivery of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine expressing HIV type 1 envelope with a cationic nanoemulsion. J. Infect. Dis. 211, 947–955 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [162] Pollard, C. et al. Type I IFN counteracts the induction of antigen-specific immune responses by lipid-based delivery of mRNA vaccines. Mol. Ther. 21, 251–259 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [84] Li, M. et al. Enhanced intranasal delivery of mRNA vaccine by overcoming the nasal epithelial barrier via intra- and paracellular pathways. J. Control. Rel. 228, 9–19 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [163] Moyo, N. et al. Efficient induction of T cells against conserved HIV-1 regions by mosaic vaccines delivered as self-amplifying mRNA. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 12, 32–46 (2019). source
- Not checked yetcites [164] Zhao, M., Li, M., Zhang, Z., Gong, T. & Sun, X. Induction of HIV-1 gag specific immune responses by cationic micelles mediated delivery of gag mRNA. Drug Deliv. 23, 2596–2607 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [165] Blakney, A. K., McKay, P. F., Yus, B. I., Aldon, Y. & Shattock, R. J. Inside out: optimization of lipid nanoparticle formulations for exterior complexation and in vivo delivery of saRNA. Gene Ther. 26, 363–372 (2019). source
- Not checked yetcites [166] Pardi, N. et al. Characterization of HIV-1 nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines in rabbits and rhesus macaques. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 15, 36–47 (2019). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using a similar approach, Moderna successfully delivered mRNA encoding the mAb CHKV-24, 4 h after chikungunya virus inoculation and protected mice from chikungunya virus-induced arthritis158.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Zika virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [158] Kose, N. et al. A lipid-encapsulated mRNA encoding a potently neutralizing human monoclonal antibody protects against Chikungunya infection. Sci. Immunol. 4, 6647 (2019). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Notably, the broadly neutralizing mAbs, VRC01, have recently gained attention thanks to their ability to neutralize 98% of HIV strains167 and prevent transmission of antibody-sensitive strains with 75.4% efficacy168.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > HIV
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [167] Singh, A. Eliciting B cell immunity against infectious diseases using nanovaccines. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 16–24 (2021). source
- Not checked yetcites [168] Corey, L. et al. Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 1003–1014 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These encouraging preclinical results prompted a phase I trial, and interim results suggest that the vaccine — mRNA-1893 (Table 1) — induces 94–100% seroconversion in 10 μg and 30 μg dose groups and is well tolerated (see Related links).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Zika virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Related links
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Two 10 µg doses of the LNP-encapsulated modified mRNA delivered 21 days apart protected mice from a Zika challenge and diminished the production of dengue-enhancing antibodies156.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Zika virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [156] Richner, J. M. et al. Modified mRNA vaccines protect against Zika virus infection. Cell 168, 1114–1125.e10 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, although the delivery route did not affect the immune response, the delivery device did, with only the intradermal injector producing a short-lived humoral response188.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Rabies virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [188] Alberer, M. et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet 390, 1511–1520 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 1968, for example, a formalin-inactivated RSV vaccine candidate caused vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) in children. This response triggered excessive eosinophil and neutrophil infiltration in the lungs, resulting in severe bronchiolitis or pneumonia in 80% of the vaccinated children and two fatalities172.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Respiratory syncytial virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [172] Kim, H. W. et al. Respiratory syncytial virus disease in infants despite prior administration of antigenic inactivated vaccine. Am. J. Epidemiol. 89, 422–434 (1969). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In phase I clinical trials, mRNA-1777 elicited a robust humoral response with RSV neutralizing antibodies, a CD4+ T cell response to RSV F peptides and no serious adverse events181.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Respiratory syncytial virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] Aliprantis, A. O. et al. A phase 1, randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of an mRNA-based RSV prefusion F protein vaccine in healthy younger and older adults. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 17, 1248–1261 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In 2019, the FDA approved a recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based Ebola vaccine (rVSV-EBOV).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Ebola virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Related links
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In non-human primates, two 100 µg doses spaced 28 days apart were well tolerated and provoked 20-fold higher antibody titres than a commercially licensed rabies vaccine189.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Rabies virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [189] Lutz, J. et al. Unmodified mRNA in LNPs constitutes a competitive technology for prophylactic vaccines. NPJ Vaccines 2, 29 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Phase I results suggest that two 1 µg doses yield high neutralizing titres, strong adaptive immune responses, and were well tolerated190.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Rabies virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [190] Aldrich, C. et al. Proof-of-concept of a low-dose unmodified mRNA-based rabies vaccine formulated with lipid nanoparticles in human volunteers: a phase 1 trial. Vaccine 39, 1310–1318 (2021). source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The vaccine elicited glycoprotein-specific IgG antibodies and robust expression of IFNγ and IL-2 by CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, and two dosing regimens (two 4 μg doses or one 40 μg dose) protected mice from a lethal challenge184.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Ebola virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [184] Chahal, J. S. et al. Dendrimer-RNA nanoparticles generate protective immunity against lethal Ebola, H1N1 influenza, and Toxoplasma gondii challenges with a single dose. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E5250 (2016). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Two 15 µg primer–booster doses improved helper T cell development and elicited anti-Plasmodium IgG antibodies and memory T cell responses192.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Plasmodium
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [192] Baeza Garcia, A. et al. Neutralization of the Plasmodium-encoded MIF ortholog confers protective immunity against malaria infection. Nat. Commun. 9, 2714 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another study vaccinated guinea pigs with two 20 μg doses of a LNP-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding the EBOV glycoprotein, inducing high antibody titres and protecting the animals from a lethal viral challenge185.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Ebola virus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [185] Meyer, M. et al. Modified mRNA-based vaccines elicit robust immune responses and protect guinea pigs from Ebola virus disease. J. Infect. Dis. 217, 451–455 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In clinical trials, two doses of mRNA-1273 also elicited durable antibody responses over a period of 6 months. Although antibody titres declined slightly over the duration of the study, high neutralizing ability was retained across all age groups205.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Duration of antibody response
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [205] Doria-Rose, N. et al. Antibody persistence through 6 months after the second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine for covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 2259–2261 (2021). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One study in mice showed that LNPs encapsulating nucleoside-modified mRNA circulated for longer and induced stronger TFH cell and germinal centre B cell responses than LNPs carrying unmodified mRNA200.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Duration of antibody response
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [200] Pardi, N. et al. Nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines induce potent T follicular helper and germinal center B cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 215, 1571–1588 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Novel strategies against these viruses involve delivering mRNA vaccines that target conserved regions such as the haemagglutinin stalk on influenza149, or encodeing broadly neutralizing antibodies such as VRC01 that bind to conserved regions of the CD4 binding site on the HIV gp120 protein206.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccines against emerging viral variants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [149] Pardi, N. et al. Nucleoside-modified mRNA immunization elicits influenza virus hemagglutinin stalk-specific antibodies. Nat. Commun. 9, 3361 (2018). source
- Not checked yetcites [206] Li, Y. et al. Mechanism of neutralization by the broadly neutralizing HIV-1 monoclonal antibody VRC01. J. Virol. 85, 8954–8967 (2011). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results are promising; however, the duration of antibody response is a complex phenomenon that will vary from antigen to antigen and will require longer-term data for a comprehensive understanding.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Duration of antibody response
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At the time of this writing, Moderna is evaluating the original mRNA-1273 vaccine and updated versions of the vaccine as a third dose booster — mRNA-1273.351, which encodes the spike protein from the B.1.351 variant, and mRNA-1273.211, a multivariant vaccine that is a 1:1 mix of mRNA-1273 and mRNA-1273.351 (ref.8).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccines against emerging viral variants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Wu, K. et al. Variant SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines confer broad neutralization as primary or booster series in mice. bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.13.439482v1 (2021). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Three 50 μg doses were able to reduce parasitaemia in Aotus monkeys after a P. falciparum challenge193.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Plasmodium
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Raj, D. K. et al. Anti-PfGARP activates programmed cell death of parasites and reduces severe malaria. Nature 582, 104–108 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“PfGARP is expressed on the surface of infected erythrocytes and is recognized by antibodies from children who are relatively resistant to P. falciparum193.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > Plasmodium
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Raj, D. K. et al. Anti-PfGARP activates programmed cell death of parasites and reduces severe malaria. Nature 582, 104–108 (2020). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Anti-PEG antibodies have been reported in 40% of the population, which might heighten the risk of allergic reactions in certain individuals and impede vaccine efficacy218.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Safety
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [218] Kozma, G. T., Shimizu, T., Ishida, T. & Szebeni, J. Anti-PEG antibodies: properties, formation, testing and role in adverse immune reactions to PEGylated nano-biopharmaceuticals. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 154–155, 163–175 (2020). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rare in utero transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has also been reported222,223; its implications on maternal, fetal and neonatal health are under active investigation.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Cytomegalovirus infection, for example, causes complications in up to 1% of pregnancies and can lead to congenital disabilities and neurological impairment in infants220.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [220] Bialas, K. M., Swamy, G. K. & Permar, S. R. Perinatal cytomegalovirus and varicella zoster virus infections: epidemiology, prevention, and treatment. Clin. Perinatol. 42, 61–75 (2015). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Zika virus can infect cortical neurons and glial cells in the fetus, resulting in cell death, neuroinflammation and severe congenital malformations221.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [221] Yockey, L. J., Lucas, C. & Iwasaki, A. Contributions of maternal and fetal antiviral immunity in congenital disease. Science 368, 608–612 (2020). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, mRNA vaccines have promising safety profiles, with only mild or moderate adverse events occurring in clinical trials.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Safety
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cytomegalovirus infection, for example, causes complications in up to 1% of pregnancies and can lead to congenital disabilities and neurological impairment in infants220.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [220] Bialas, K. M., Swamy, G. K. & Permar, S. R. Perinatal cytomegalovirus and varicella zoster virus infections: epidemiology, prevention, and treatment. Clin. Perinatol. 42, 61–75 (2015). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Maternal IgG antibodies readily cross the placenta by binding to the neonatal crystallizable fragment (Fc) receptor, enter the fetal circulation and protect the fetus from pathogens224.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [224] Roopenian, D. C. & Akilesh, S. FcRn: the neonatal Fc receptor comes of age. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 7, 715–725 (2007). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a preclinical study, CureVac’s RNActive delivery platform activated TLR7 and generated durable immune responses against a lethal influenza dose in 18-month-old mice105.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] Kallen, K. J. et al. A novel, disruptive vaccination technology: self-adjuvanted RNActive® vaccines. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 9, 2263–2276 (2013). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Preliminary data suggest that mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 elicited similar adverse events in pregnant and non-pregnant people, and the vaccines did not increase the incidence of neonatal death or congenital anomalies231.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [231] Shimabukuro, T. T. et al. Preliminary findings of mRNA Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnant persons. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 2273–2282 (2021). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“By 2050, the proportion of the global population over 60 years old is expected to almost double from 12% to 22% (see Related links).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Related links
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“70–90% of influenza-related mortalities occur in people older than 65 years232”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [232] Crooke, S. N., Ovsyannikova, I. G., Poland, G. A. & Kennedy, R. B. Immunosenescence and human vaccine immune responses. Immun. Ageing 16, 25 (2019). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Moderna vaccine candidate mRNA-1273 was also highly effective, and showed 86.4% efficacy in volunteers ≥65 years old, in comparison with 95.6% efficacy in 18–65-year-old volunteers131.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [131] Baden, L. R. et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 384, 403–416 (2020). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Reduced Toll-like receptor expression stalls cytokine and chemokine secretion by monocytes and macrophages and limits crosstalk with the adaptive immune system234.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [234] Van Den Biggelaar, A. H. J. et al. Impaired innate immunity predicts frailty in old age. The Leiden 85-plus study. Exp. Gerontol. 39, 1407–1414 (2004). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“COVID-19 is reported to be 62 times more fatal in patients older than 65 than it is in younger patients233.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [233] Yanez, N. D., Weiss, N. S., Romand, J. A. & Treggiari, M. M. COVID-19 mortality risk for older men and women. BMC Public Health 20, 1742 (2020). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although vertically transferred maternal antibodies can prevent neonatal infection, they can also impede the efficacy of vaccines that are administered to infants later in life.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enhanced efficacy will lower the acceptance rates required for herd immunity, and improved safety will stem media reports of adverse events and, thus, decrease fear of vaccination.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccine acceptance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“public mistrust fuelled by misinformation and anti-vaccination movements threatens the maintenance of herd immunity and puts our most vulnerable populations at risk.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccine acceptance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“MF59 amplifies the immunogenicity of influenza vaccines and has been approved for use in elderly adults110.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccination in specific populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [110] Tsai, T. F. Fluad®-MF59®-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in older adults. Infect. Chemother. 45, 159–174 (2013). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Access to vaccines is the greatest challenge in achieving widespread protection against infectious diseases, especially in low-income countries.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Access to vaccines
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first two mRNA vaccines, which were developed at revolutionary speed to fight SARS-CoV-2, have exceeded expectations and offer hope that the COVID-19 pandemic will end.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Outlook
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is undeniable that vaccines have eradicated several infectious diseases in portions of the world and saved countless lives.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccine acceptance
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decades of progress in mRNA design and nucleic acid delivery technology, together with the discovery of novel antigen targets have made mRNA vaccines an extraordinary tool for combating emerging pandemics and existing infectious diseases.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Enhanced efficacy will lower the acceptance rates required for herd immunity, and improved safety will stem media reports of adverse events and, thus, decrease fear of vaccination.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccine acceptance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“measles, which was eradicated from the USA in 2000, infected more than 1,200 people in 2019 owing to poor vaccine compliance in multiple communities (see Related links).”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Key issues for the field > Vaccine acceptance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Related links
plaindirectn = 1,200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
mRNA vaccines encoding conformation-specific proteins, conserved regions of antigens or monoclonal antibodies can be safely delivered to healthy adults, children, elderly people and pregnant people.
“Depending on the challenges, mRNA vaccines encoding conformation-specific proteins, conserved regions of antigens or monoclonal antibodies can be safely delivered to healthy adults, children, elderly people and pregnant people.”
The paper relies on this without support.
On 11 December 2020, BNT162b2 received emergency authorization from the FDA and became the first mRNA drug approved for use in humans.
“On 11 December 2020, the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 received emergency authorization from the FDA and became the first mRNA drug approved for use in humans.”
The paper relies on this without support.
One week later, mRNA-1273 was authorized for use in the USA.
“One week later, the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 was also authorized for use in the USA.”
The paper relies on this without support.
BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to be authorized in the USA, the UK, Canada and several other countries.
“Ultimately, they were the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to be authorized in the USA, the UK, Canada and several other countries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Usually, the antigen encoded by vaccine mRNA is either the full-length spike protein or the spike protein's receptor-binding domain.
“Usually, the antigen encoded by the vaccine mRNA is either the full-length spike protein or the spike protein’s receptor-binding domain.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“mRNA vaccines are promising alternatives to conventional vaccines because of their high potency, low manufacturing cost, and short preparation period (Bok et al., 2021; Chaudhary et al., 2021).”
From A novel Toxoplasma gondii TGGT1_316290 mRNA-LNP vaccine elicits protective immune response against toxoplasmosis in mice (2023) · cites this paper as Chaudhary et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Unlike currently approved mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer/BNT and Moderna 4 , ChulaCov19 is a wild-type non-stabilized spike-protein-encoded mRNA vaccine encapsulated with a different LNP that is thermostable at 2-8 °C for at least 3 months.”
From Safety and immunogenicity of a prefusion non-stabilized spike protein mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a phase I trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Many nucleoside-modified mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including BNT162b2, BNT162b1, and BNT162b3 developed by BioNTech27,177; mRNA-1273, TAK919, mRNA-1273.211, mRNA-1273.351, mRNA-1283 developed by Moderna28,178; ChulaCov19 developed by Chulalongkorn University; and PTX-COVID19-B developed by Providence Therapeutics, have been approved for commercialization or entered clinical trials.104”
From Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development (2022) · cites this paper as [104]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
“Both candidates were well tolerated and efficacious, but only the BNT162b2 vaccine advanced to phase II/III trials owing to its milder systemic and local adverse reactions124.”
§ mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases: principles, delivery and clinical translation > Progress with mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases > SARS-CoV-2
“| BNT162b1 (Abdavomeran)/BioNTech, Pfizer | Nucleoside-modified | Secreted spike RBD | Phase II/III | NCT04368728 (43,998 participants; Argentina, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, Turkey, USA)”
Citations
Cites
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Perez, J. L., Pérez Marc, G., Moreira, E. D., Zerbini, C., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2034577 · Cited by 14,592
A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China
Wu, F., Zhao, S., Yu, B., Chen, Y.-M., Wang, W., Song, Z.-G., Hu, Y., Tao, Z.-W., Tian, J.-H., Pei, Y.-Y., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3 · Cited by 11,688
Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
Baden, L. R., El Sahly, H. M., Essink, B., Kotloff, K., Frey, S., Novak, R., Diemert, D., Spector, S. A., Rouphael, N., Creech, C. B., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2035389 · Cited by 10,119
Cryo-EM structure of the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation
Wrapp, D., Wang, N., Corbett, K. S., Goldsmith, J. A., Hsieh, C.-L., Abiona, O., Graham, B. S., & McLellan, J. S. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb2507 · Cited by 8,897
Structure, function and antigenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein
Walls, A. C., Park, Y.-J., Tortorici, M. A., Wall, A., McGuire, A. T., & Veesler, D. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.02.19.956581 · Cited by 8,586
Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities
Shi, J., Kantoff, P. W., Wooster, R., & Farokhzad, O. C. (2017) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2016.108 · Cited by 5,873
mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology
Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W., & Weissman, D. (2018) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2017.243 · Cited by 4,667
Self-citationThe trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention
Tay, M. Z., Poh, C. M., Rénia, L., MacAry, P. A., & Ng, L. F. P. (2020) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/s41577-020-0311-8 · Cited by 4,360
SARS-CoV-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape
Harvey, W. T., Carabelli, A. M., Jackson, B., Gupta, R. K., Thomson, E. C., Harrison, E. M., Ludden, C., Reeve, R., Rambaut, A., COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium, et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-021-00573-0 · Cited by 3,528
An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report
Jackson, L. A., Anderson, E. J., Rouphael, N. G., Roberts, P. C., Makhene, M., Coler, R. N., McCullough, M. P., Chappell, J. D., Denison, M. R., Stevens, L. J., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2022483 · Cited by 3,237
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Roth, N. et al. CV2CoV, an enhanced mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate, supports higher protein expression and improved immunogenicity in rats. bioRxiv, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.13.443734v1.full (2021). · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mendes, B. B., Conniot, J., Avital, A., Yao, D., Jiang, X., Zhou, X., Sharf-Pauker, N., Xiao, Y., Adir, O., Liang, H., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00104-y · Cited by 719
Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development
Fang, E., Liu, X., Li, M., Zhang, Z., Song, L., Zhu, B., Wu, X., Liu, J., Zhao, D., & Li, Y. (2022) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-022-00950-y · Cited by 601
mRNA-based cancer therapeutics
Liu, C., Shi, Q., Huang, X., Koo, S., Kong, N., & Tao, W. (2023) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-023-00586-2 · Cited by 500
A Comprehensive Review of mRNA Vaccines
Gote, V., Bolla, P. K., Kommineni, N., Butreddy, A., Nukala, P. K., Palakurthi, S. S., & Khan, W. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24032700 · Cited by 457
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: Platforms and current developments
Szabó, G. T., Mahiny, A. J., & Vlatkovic, I. (2022) · Molecular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.02.016 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaudhary, N., Weissman, D., & Whitehead, K. A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Whitehead, Kathryn A.
- Venue
- Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
- Published
- 2021-08-25
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 817-838
- ISSN
- 1474-1776 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-1784
- PMC
- PMC8386155
- OpenAlex
- W3193427089
- Semantic Scholar
- 359f6d39ae42aac7ba1a1647d4ff9e1e4ee1bf85
- Cited by
- 1,555
- References
- 267
- Citations by year
- 2026: 284 · 2025: 405 · 2024: 320 · 2023: 299 · 2022: 219 · 2021: 27
- FWCI
- 22.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2021-09-21)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (DP2HD098860)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
- Keywords
- mRNA vaccines, lipid nanoparticles, mRNA vaccine design, mRNA synthesis, COVID-19 vaccines, infectious disease vaccines, vaccine development pipeline, clinical translation
- MeSH terms
- Drug Development, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, mRNA Vaccines, Clinical Trials as Topic, Communicable Disease Control, Humans, RNA, Messenger, Vaccines, Synthetic, Drug Design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review