Unexplored biosafety issues with respect to self-amplifying (RdRp) RNA-LNP products
Is recombination a potential outcome and if so, we could have a very big problem on our hands: Unanswered questions that need to be addressed
JESSICA ROSE
This article is about RNA recombination and the potential dangers of this happening with regard to injecting self-amplifying RNA-LNP injectable products into mammals, including humans. Yesterday I wrote about the incredibly concerning FDA “Study Can Proceed” notification of a Phase I trial of a Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)-funded self-amplifying LNP-wrapped ‘pandemic’ H5N1 injectable product in humans. The amount of information pertaining to this trial is anemic at best, and there is no information as to the alphavirus selected, the RNA templates extracted from H5N1 used as inserts, or the LNP formulation. I would assume it’s the same as for the modified mRNA-LNP COVID-19 injectable products but I am not certain.
I conclude this article with 5 exploratory questions answered by Grok AI.
Arcturus is actively engaged with the U.S. government to prepare for the next pandemic.1
If that sentence doesn’t concern you, it should.
ARCT-2304 is a sa-mRNA vaccine candidate formulated within a lipid nanoparticle (LNP). The sa-mRNA vaccine candidate is designed to make many copies of mRNA within the host cell after intramuscular injection to achieve enhanced expression of haemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) antigens, thereby enabling lower doses than conventional mRNA vaccines.
The Phase 1 clinical trial is designed to evaluate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of ARCT-2304 as a potential vaccine to protect against the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza.2
The product in Phase I trials is called LUNAR-FLU (ARCT-2304) Pandemic for ‘Pandemic Influenza’ (H5N1). You can read about that here.
Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 (A/H5N1) is a subtype of the influenza A virus, which causes influenza (flu), predominantly in birds, but can infect humans.3
Recombination can be replicative or non-replicative. This means that recombination can occur during the replication process or can involve the direct joining of pre-existing RNA molecules. In the case of the former, the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) – responsible for synthesizing new RNA strands – can switch templates, incorporating sequences from one viral RNA molecule into another (donor vs. acceptor) resulting in the creation of a new recombinant RNA molecule.8 In the case of the latter, there is no involvement of RdRp – two RNA molecules are joined at specific sites.
VEEV is an unsegmented RNA virus – this means instead of having their genome divided into multiple independent RNA segments where each segment encodes one or more viral protein, they have a continuous RNA strand that contains all the genes necessary for the virus to replicate and produce new viral particles. A recombination event between two unsegmented RNA viruses is demonstrated below. VEEV carries the RdRp gene. The RdRp gene is essential to viral replication and production of new virions in non-segmented RNA viruses. It’s also notable that recombination can occur more frequently in non-segmented RNA viruses because of their continuous genomes.
So since RdRp synthesizes new RNA strands by copying a template RNA strand, a recombination event can occur in the presence of another compatible RNA template within the same host cell, say, exogenously introduced foreign RNA encoding spike or NA/HA from influenza. When the genetic material is replicated, RdRp may switch between these templates, incorporating segments from each into the new RNA strand. This would result in a new viral genome containing a mixture of genetic material from the parent virus and the foreign RNA material. RdRp is also error-prone so can contribute to recombination events from this vantage point as well.
It is also notable that there will be compatibility issues between viruses with regard to expression of surface proteins, for example. The compatibility between the alphavirus that they chose to use for their self-amplifying products (it could be VEEV), and the chunks of genetic material loaded into the sub-genomic-material-deleted VEEV template, downstream of RdRp gene – be it spike from SARS-2 or HA/NA from influenza, are potentially low, but we don’t really know. It will depend on how (and if) exactly they modified the inserts. Depending on structural and functional compatibility between VEEV’s alphavirus envelope and influenza’s envelope proteins, the result of the recombination might not be a stable, functional virus; it might instead lead to either non-viable recombinants or viruses with reduced fitness. We can only hope, just like Birx told us to.
More specifically, the lipid compositions and protein anchoring abilities of the alphavirus would have to be compatible with whatever protein was available for expression – be it spike or HA/NA. The genes for the spike/flu proteins would need to be expressed correctly in the context of VEEV’s replication cycle to be processed and transported to the membrane, and the glycosylation patterns of VEEV proteins versus spike/flu proteins might differ as well, potentially impacting compatibility.
The thing that bothers me the most is the proprietary excuses that these pharma companies cling to. If we can’t know what the sequences for the alphavirus template are, or what the inserted genes (be it spike or HA/NA) are exactly, how can we assess compatibility issues with regard to potential recombination concerns? Were these guys codon-optimized? Apparently for the KOSTAIVE® (ARCT-154) Monovalent: JN.1 product, the spike gene was codon optimized. We know nothing about this Phase trial LUNAR®-FLU (ARCT-2304) Pandemic self-amplifying flu product paid for by DARPA.
I asked Grok the following 5 questions:
- What would happen to a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus if it recombined with a self-amplifying gene therapy product with H5N1 hemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes?
Answer
If a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) were to recombine with a self-amplifying gene therapy product incorporating genes for H5N1 hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA), several potential outcomes could be hypothesized:
- Increased Pathogenicity or Virulence:
- Enhanced Cell Entry: The HA gene from H5N1 could potentially enhance the ability of the virus to enter host cells, given that HA is crucial for the attachment and entry of influenza viruses into host cells. If this gene were to be expressed on the surface of a VEEV-like particle, it might allow the virus to infect cells that might not typically be susceptible to VEEV alone.
- Altered Tropism: The presence of H5N1 genes might change the tissue tropism of the virus, possibly leading it to infect different types of cells or tissues than the original VEEV. This could potentially increase the spread or severity of infection within a host.
- Immune Response Modulation:
- Antigen Presentation: The inclusion of H5N1 HA and NA antigens might trigger an immune response typical of influenza, potentially confusing or overloading the immune system, especially if it encounters both viral proteins in a novel context. This could lead to an altered immune response where the body might be less effective at neutralizing the virus due to the presence of unexpected antigens.
- Replication Dynamics:
- Self-Amplification: If the gene therapy product uses a self-amplifying RNA system, this could potentially increase the production of viral proteins or RNA, leading to higher viral loads within infected cells. This might result in a more robust infection cycle, potentially increasing the cytopathic effect on host cells.
- Potential for New Vaccine or Therapeutic Development:
- While this recombination could pose risks, it also presents an opportunity for developing novel vaccines or therapeutic strategies. For instance, using VEEV as a vector for delivering influenza antigens could lead to a highly immunogenic chimeric virus that could be used in vaccine development, although this would come with significant biosafety considerations.
- Biosafety Concerns:
- Risk of Generating a New Pathogen: Such a chimeric virus might possess characteristics not found in either parent virus, potentially creating a new pathogen with unpredictable behavior. This would raise significant biosafety issues, as the new virus might have increased transmissibility or pathogenicity.
- Regulatory and Ethical Issues:
- Any work involving the creation or study of such recombinant viruses would face intense scrutiny from regulatory bodies due to the potential biosecurity and biosafety risks. Ethical considerations around manipulating viruses to potentially increase their pathogenicity would also be paramount.
Given these points, the exact outcome would depend heavily on how these genetic elements interact, the stability of the recombinant genome, and the host’s immune response. Such a scenario underscores the importance of stringent controls in genetic engineering and virology to prevent unintended consequences like pandemics or ecological disruptions.
- If a person was infected with Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus and they got injected with a self-amplifying flu vaccine that had genes encoding hemagglutinin and neuraminidase, could a recombination event ensue?
Answer
The possibility of a recombination event between a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) infection and a self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccine expressing influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) genes involves several complex biological processes:
- Co-infection Requirement:
- For recombination to occur, both viruses would need to infect the same cell at the same time. With VEEV, an alphavirus, primarily infecting neural and lymphatic tissues, and an influenza-based vaccine potentially targeting respiratory cells or inducing expression in muscle or skin cells if administered intramuscularly or intradermally, the likelihood of co-infection in the same cell type might be low. However, if the vaccine’s RNA is capable of systemic distribution or if there’s a chance of cross-infection in shared cell types, this risk increases.
- RNA Recombination:
- RNA viruses like VEEV and influenza viruses have RNA genomes that can undergo recombination, although this is more common among related viruses. VEEV is an alphavirus, and influenza viruses belong to the orthomyxovirus family, making natural recombination between these two less likely due to their different genetic architectures. However, human intervention through genetic engineering could potentially facilitate such events.
- Mechanism of Recombination:
- If the self-amplifying vaccine uses RNA, there would need to be a mechanism for the RNA to enter the same replication compartment as VEEV for recombination to occur. This could theoretically happen via:
- Homologous Recombination: Where similar RNA sequences align and exchange genetic material. However, this would require sufficient sequence homology between VEEV and the influenza genes, which is unlikely given their different origins.
- Non-homologous Recombination: Less sequence-specific but less common, where RNA segments could be joined together through mechanisms like template switching during replication.
- If the self-amplifying vaccine uses RNA, there would need to be a mechanism for the RNA to enter the same replication compartment as VEEV for recombination to occur. This could theoretically happen via:
- Genetic Compatibility:
- The expression of influenza HA and NA in a VEEV backbone would face challenges due to codon usage differences, protein folding requirements, and the need for post-translational modifications specific to each virus’s lifecycle.
- Safety Features of saRNA Vaccines:
- Modern saRNA vaccines often include safety features like:
- Deletion of Essential Genes: Removing genes crucial for replication (like the capsid gene in VEEV-based vectors) in one or both viruses to prevent full virus particle formation.
- Use of Split Helper Systems: Separating necessary genes onto different RNA molecules to reduce the likelihood of generating replication-competent virus through recombination.
- Modern saRNA vaccines often include safety features like:
- Implications for Humans:
- If such a recombination event did occur, it would likely lead to an attenuated or non-viable virus due to the genetic mismatch. However, in an unlikely scenario where a viable recombinant emerged, it could potentially display:
- Altered Pathogenicity: Depending on how the genes function together.
- New Antigenic Properties: Possibly eliciting an immune response against influenza or VEEV, or both, in novel ways.
- If such a recombination event did occur, it would likely lead to an attenuated or non-viable virus due to the genetic mismatch. However, in an unlikely scenario where a viable recombinant emerged, it could potentially display:
Given all these considerations, while not entirely impossible, the probability of a functional recombination event happening in a human host after vaccination, leading to a viable and pathogenic chimeric virus, is low due to biological barriers, the design of modern vaccines, and the lack of extensive genetic homology. However, this scenario would be of great concern in terms of biosafety, leading to rigorous testing and safety protocols in the development of such vaccines.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply