Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29275847›Full record

ArticleMolecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy2018

Self-Amplifying RNA Vaccines Give Equivalent Protection against Influenza to mRNA Vaccines but at Much Lower Doses.

Annette B Vogel, Laura Lambert, Ekaterina Kinnear, David Busse, Stephanie Erbar, Kerstin C Reuter, Lena Wicke, Mario Perkovic, Tim Beissert, Heinrich Haas and 3 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04934111 (A Clinical Trial to Assess the Safety and Immunogenicity of LNP-nCOV saRNA-02, a Self-amplifying Ribonucleic Acid), which is not on this map. Cited by 300 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
300citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04934111 phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

A Clinical Trial to Assess the Safety and Immunogenicity of LNP-nCOV saRNA-02, a Self-amplifying Ribonucleic Acid (saRNA) Vaccine, in SARS-CoV-2 Seronegative and Seropositive Uganda Population

TypeinterventionalSponsorMRC/UVRI and LSHTM Uganda Research UnitRan2021 to 2022Enrolled42ConditionsCOVID-19ArmsLNP-nCOV saRNA-02 Vaccine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

300 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 478 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. A self-amplifying mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate induces safe and robust protective immunity in preclinical models.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2022
    Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Towards mRNA therapeutics 2.0.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Transgene sequence codon optimization and composition determines replication competence of self-amplifying RNA.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. iScience · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Enhanced efficacy of a next-generation EEEV self-replicating RNA platform for combination cancer immunotherapies.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article

240 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Annette B VogelBioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: annette.vogel@biontech.de.
Laura LambertMucosal Infection and Immunity Group, Section of Virology, Department of Medicine, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London W2 1PG, UK.
Ekaterina KinnearMucosal Infection and Immunity Group, Section of Virology, Department of Medicine, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London W2 1PG, UK.
David BusseMucosal Infection and Immunity Group, Section of Virology, Department of Medicine, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London W2 1PG, UK.
Stephanie ErbarBioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Kerstin C ReuterBioNTech AG, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Lena WickeBioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Mario PerkovicTRON GmbH, Freiligrathstraße 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Tim BeissertTRON GmbH, Freiligrathstraße 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Heinrich HaasBioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Stephen T ReeceBioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals GmbH, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Ugur SahinBioNTech AG, An der Goldgrube 12, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
John S TregoningMucosal Infection and Immunity Group, Section of Virology, Department of Medicine, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London W2 1PG, UK. Electronic address: john.tregoning@imperial.ac.uk.
BioNTech (Germany) · DEImperial College London · GBTranslationale Onkologie an der Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz · DE

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J006548/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New vaccine platforms are needed to address the time gap between pathogen emergence and vaccine licensure. RNA-based vaccines are an attractive candidate for this role: they are safe, are produced cell free, and can be rapidly generated in response to pathogen emergence. Two RNA vaccine platforms are available: synthetic mRNA molecules encoding only the antigen of interest and self-amplifying RNA (sa-RNA). sa-RNA is virally derived and encodes both the antigen of interest and proteins enabling RNA vaccine replication. Both platforms have been shown to induce an immune response, but it is not clear which approach is optimal. In the current studies, we compared synthetic mRNA and sa-RNA expressing influenza virus hemagglutinin. Both platforms were protective, but equivalent levels of protection were achieved using 1.25 μg sa-RNA compared to 80 μg mRNA (64-fold less material). Having determined that sa-RNA was more effective than mRNA, we tested hemagglutinin from three strains of influenza H1N1, H3N2 (X31), and B (Massachusetts) as sa-RNA vaccines, and all protected against challenge infection. When sa-RNA was combined in a trivalent formulation, it protected against sequential H1N1 and H3N2 challenges. From this we conclude that sa-RNA is a promising platform for vaccines against viral diseases.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHemagglutinin Glycoproteins, Influenza VirusHumansImmunizationImmunization, SecondaryInfluenza A virusInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMiceRNA, MessengerRNA, ViralT-Lymphocyte SubsetsHemagglutinin Glycoproteins, Influenza VirusInfluenza VaccinesRNA, MessengerRNA, ViralalphavirusDNAH1N1influenzarepliconRNAtrivalentvaccine

Identifiers

PMID29275847
PMCPMC5835025
OpenAlexW2775712816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.