41–50 of 62 posts
> Over many years of experimentation, it was found that if the U in RNA is replaced by a slightly modified molecule, our immune system loses interest. For real. Countdown to see this in vivo. For real.
For the ones with the knowlegde I have the following question: how long in days (hours?), does it take for this mRna to degrade and stop functioning and restoring the normal working of the host cells?
My knowledge of modern genetic engineering is limited to some popsci literature, so I understand only parts of this story. I was surprside by this part though: "Over many years of experimentation, it was found that if the U in RNA is replaced by a slightly modified molecule, our immune system loses interest. For real. [...] The really clever bit is that although this replacement Ψ placates (calms) our immune system,…
"There are 11 pseudouridines in the Escherichia coli rRNA, 30 in yeast cytoplasmic rRNA and a single modification in mitochondrial 21S rRNA and about 100 pseudouridines in human rRNA indicating that the extent of pseudouridylation increases with the complexity of an organism."
So at first it shows, that Pseudouridine is not something completely new in nature. It exist for a long time already. And it seems a higher amount signals to the immune system, that this RNA is more human like and not coming from a virus. Since this mechanism seems to be established in nature I think one can assume it is safe. If it wouldn't be safe, viruses would probably already exist, which would make use of this "backdoor".
> Over many years of experimentation, it was found that if the U in RNA is replaced by a slightly modified molecule, our immune system loses interest. For real. Countdown to see this in vivo. For real.
> Many people have asked, could viruses also use the Ψ technique to beat our immune systems? In short, this is extremely unlikely. Life simply does not have the machinery to build 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl nucleotides. Viruses rely on the machinery of life to reproduce themselves, and this facility is simply not there. The mRNA vaccines quickly degrade in the human body, and there is no possibility of the Ψ-modified RNA replicating with the Ψ still in there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's no risk since cells can't make Ψ, and probaby Ψ is not super durable as a chemical.
> cells can't make Ψ Pseudouridine is the most common RNA modification in cells, actually. They produce it all the time. > and probaby Ψ is not super durable as a chemical. Quite the opposite. Pseudouridine usually increases the stability of the RNA molecule it modifies.
Many people have asked, could viruses also use the Ψ technique to beat our immune systems? In short, this is extremely unlikely. Life simply does not have the machinery to build 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl nucleotides. Viruses rely on the machinery of life to reproduce themselves, and this facility is simply not there. The mRNA vaccines quickly degrade in the human body, and there is no possibility of the Ψ-modified RNA replicating with the Ψ still in there. “No, Really, mRNA Vaccines Are Not Going To Affect Your DNA“ is also a good read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> cells can't make Ψ Pseudouridine is the most common RNA modification in cells, actually. They produce it all the time. > and probaby Ψ is not super durable as a chemical. Quite the opposite. Pseudouridine usually increases the stability of the RNA molecule it modifies.
Taken from the article (probably after an update): Many people have asked, could viruses also use the Ψ technique to beat our immune systems? In short, this is extremely unlikely. Life simply does not have the machinery to build 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl nucleotides. Viruses rely on the machinery of life to reproduce themselves, and this facility is simply not there. The mRNA vaccines quickly degrade in the human bo…
Is there a book or textbook that approaches genetics from a source-code hacking point of view? It's quite interesting and I'd like to learn more
Key Sentence
'In addition, I’ve been maintaining a page on ‘DNA for programmers’ since 2001.'
What kind of “license” applies to this “source code”?
The article is easy to follow and is an enjoyable read!
Thanks! If anyone has questions, I am here for them!
The question about the one base change that did _not_ lead to an additional C or G, the CCA -> CCU modification?
(Note to myself: I think the question is: Why CCA -> CCU and not CCA -> CCG)