Stay up to date...

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Question:

204. Studies have shown that the weight of the protein produced by the mRNA vary by as much as 50% – surely this is evidence that the mRNA is not being produced in a consistent manner by the ribosomes? Is the TGA tracking the product being produced by the ribosomes? 221. Why is TGA/Pfizer calling it mRNA when it isn’t mRNA – the use of Methylpseudouridine means it’s a different substance does it not? 267. Which part of the mRNA code directs it to be processed on the ribosomes bound to the endoplasmic reticulum – could the TGA please state the name of the amino acid and what position the amino acid sits on the mRNA strand? 289. Is pseudouridine impervious to the mRNAse, the enzyme that breaks down mRNA?

Answer:

Question Number: 210
PDR Number: SQ22-000580
Date Submitted: 21/11/2022
Department or Body: Department of Health

204 A variation of 50% would not be accepted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and is not. The results of the in vitro translation test (i.e. protein production by translated vaccine mRNA) are monitored through the TGA batch release process. The viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 is reported in the literature as having a molecular weight of 143kDa (deglycosylated form). Being a complex glycoprotein there is inherent variability in the molecules weight due to the incorporation of host derived glycans giving a measured range of 180 – 200kDa. For mRNA vaccines, an in vitro translation (methionine labelling) test is performed to confirm the mRNA active ingredient produces the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2. The translated protein must be within the acceptable molecular weight range of ±10 per cent (not 50%) before its release for supply. 221 Both TGA-provisionally approved Pfizer (COMIRNATY) and Moderna (SPIKEVAX) vaccines consist of N1-methyl-pseudouridine(Ψ) modified (N1-methyl-Ψ) mRNA encoding the SARS-COVID-19 spike protein. N1-methylpseudouridine is a naturally occurring modified nucleotide, highly abundant and naturally widespread in cells and its use does not change its mRNA features. Scientists globally consider these products as mRNA and have done so long before the emergence of COVID-19 vaccines. N1-methyl-pseudouridine is used in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines to ensure translation efficacy, stability and safety of the mRNA vaccines based on the well-established use of pseudouridine in the development of mRNA therapeutics (References 1, 2, 5, reviewed in 3 and 4 below). 267 The two mRNA vaccines (Pfizer (COMIRNATY) and Moderna (SPIKEVAX)) are technologically very similar. They contain codon-optimized sequences for efficient expression of the full-length S protein and use the authentic signal peptide sequence for its biosynthesis. The sequence consists of: a five prime cap at the start of the sequence, a five prime untranslated region, the open reading frame (translated sequence), a three prime untranslated region and a polyadenosine tail. The vaccine mRNA syntax starts with a cap (GA) followed by 5’ untranslated region (‘UTR’). 5’-UTR contains the sequence (52 nucleotides) for the ribosome landing. This is also known as ribosome binding site (RBS). The design of proper 5′ and 3′ UTRs sequences is crucial for the success of mRNA vaccines. Many investigations have been conducted to screen and design the most effective 5′ and 3′ UTR sequences for mRNA vaccines. Fang et al., 2022 summarises current UTR sequences of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from different vaccine manufacturers (Reference 6 below). The following is the UTR used in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (Reference 6 below). GAATAAACTAGTATTCTTCTGGTCCCCACAGACTCAGAGAGAACCCGCCACC T has been replaced by pseudouridine (Ψ). GAAΨAAACΨAGΨAΨΨCΨΨCΨGGΨCCCCACAGACΨCAGAGAGAACCCGCCACC 289 mRNAs are rapidly broken down by nucleases in mammalian, bacterial and yeast cells (Reference 9 below). Due to the rapid degradation of mRNA, vaccine mRNAs are delivered in lipid nanoparticles, which protect the mRNA from being broken down by nucleases and help deliver the mRNA into cells. Pseudouridine-modified mRNA could be more resistant to RNase L-mediated degradation (Reference 7 below). Because RNase L is a 2′-5′- oligoadenylate synthetase-dependent ribonuclease, the ability of pseudouridylated mRNA to limit the activity of 2′-5′-oligoadenylate synthetase could provide an advantage to pseudouridine-modified mRNA over unmodified mRNA. The reason behind the use of pseudouridine in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines was to ensure translation efficacy, stability and safety of the mRNA (reviewed in 3, 4) as well as the reduction of immunogenicity. There are no data specifically on the degradation of COVID-19 vaccine mRNAs in laboratory animals or humans. mRNAs in an mRNA-based cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine developed using the same platform as the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was rapidly eliminated from tissues with half-lives of 15-60 h in rats. The vaccine mRNAs were mainly retained at the injection site, with moderate distribution to local lymph nodes and spleen; only a relatively small fraction of the administered mRNA dose is distributed to distant tissues. The mRNA constructs did not persist beyond one to three days in tissues except for the injection site muscle, lymph nodes and spleen (detectable five days after dosing). The COVID-19 vaccine mRNA should also be broken down rapidly in humans after the vaccine injection. References (1) Pardi N., Parkhouse K., Kirkpatrick E., McMahon M., Zost S.J., Mui B.L. et al. (2018) Nucleoside-modified mRNA immunization elicits influenza virus hemagglutinin stalkspecific antibodies. Nat. Commun. 9: 3361. (2) Pardi N., Secreto A.J., Shan X., Debonera F., Glover J., Yi Y. et al. (2017) Administration of nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding broadly neutralizing antibody protects humanized mice from HIV-1 challenge. Nat. Commun. 8: 14630. (3) Morais P., Adachi H. and Yu Y.T. (2021) The Critical Contribution of Pseudouridine to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 9: 789427. (4) Nance K.D. and Meier J.L. (2021) Modifications in an Emergency: The Role of N1- Methylpseudouridine in COVID-19 Vaccines. ACS Cent. Sci. 7: 748–756. (5) Dolgin E. (2021) CureVac COVID vaccine let-down spotlights mRNA design challenges. Nature 594: 483. (6) Fang, E., Liu, X., Li, M. et al. (2022). Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development. Sig. Transduct. Target Ther. 7, 94 (7) Anderson, B. R., Muramatsu, H., Jha, B. K., Silverman, R. H., Weissman, D., and Kariko, K. (2011). Nucleoside Modifications in RNA Limit Activation of 2′-5′-oligoadenylate Synthetase and Increase Resistance to Cleavage by RNase L. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 9329– 9338. (8) Park, J. W., Lagniton, P. N. P., Liu, Y., & Xu, R. H. (2021). mRNA vaccines for COVID-19: what, why and how. Int, J. Biol. Sci. 17(6), 1446–1460. (9) Yang E., van Nimwegen E., Zavolan M., Rajewsky N., Schroeder M., Magnasco M. et al. (2003) Decay rates of human mRNAs: correlation with functional characteristics and sequence attributes. Genome Res. 13: 1863–1872.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

LATEST QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator RENNICK: Okay-last question. I had a conversation with Gavin Morris a couple of years ago about the way the ABC reports the increase in temperature from 1910. The ABC, like many other media organisations, reports the homogenised data without actually explaining the difference between the homogenised data and the raw data. Gavin Morris stressed that they reported the raw data. That is incorrect; the ABC reports the homogenised data. So I’ll ask this question again: why won’t the ABC distinguish between the raw data and the homogenised data, which is a different dataset to the actual observations recorded by the bureau? Mr Anderson: I don’t know the answer to that. I will need to take that on notice and provide a response to you. Senator RENNICK: Okay. I would like to point out that Gavin Morris did say last time that they reported the raw data and that they distinguished between raw and homogenised. I’ll stress this again, the ABC doesn’t, but I think in terms of full transparency they should.

Senator RENNICK: Do we have any costings for storage? How much will it cost, in terms of storage, to get to our 2030 target? Mr Duggan: A lot of this is, of course, private provisions. In fact, you’d hope that the vast majority of it was. Government has policies that would assist thatSenator RENNICK: That is fine, but we’re told every day that renewables are cheaper. I want that quote substantiated by proper costings, whether it’s funded publicly or privately, because it’s going to end up either out of the taxpayer’s pocket or on their energy bill. So I’m looking for costings just on storage. I want it on other issues as well, such as transmission, but I’m asking: do you have costings on that storage? Ms Brunoro: We’ll take that on notice. The difficulty with answering that question with any kind of precision is that, in terms of deep storage, it will relate to a number of technologies-it’s the same for deep and shallow. It will ultimately depend on the precise mix of those, but we can do things at a high level with respect to the nature of the type of storage that fits within that and provide some estimates to you. Senator RENNICK: So you don’t have definite figures at the moment? Mr Duggan: What we can do for you-and we’ll have to take this on notice-is look at the existing pipeline of projects that are underway and what the private proponents have told us about the cost of those things. We can add to that: through Rewiring the Nation or other policies that are helping to assist that, we can break down the government contribution to that. But we just don’t have all that detail in front of us. Senator RENNICK: I want government and private, because, ultimately, it going to cost the consumer through taxes or energy bills. But is that fair to say that that’s not completed yet? Mr Duggan: We will take that on notice and we’ll endeavour to do our best to come back to you.

Senator RENNICK: Thanks very much. Yet again, in terms of the overall modelling, have you got a breakout of how many turbines you need, how many solar panels you need to get to 82 per cent renewables? Ms Brunoro: Again, the Integrated System Plan does provide an indication of the type of the level of renewable energy, so just bear with us a second. Mr Peisley: Sorry, I don’t think we do have that figure in front of us. We’re happy to take it on notice and get it to you. Ms Brunoro: But if it gives you a sense of it, it’s nine times the amount of the existing variable renewable energy that currently is-well, as of when the last Integrated System Plan came out, it was operating in the NEM at that point. So that gives you the quantum ofSenator RENNICK: So nine times what? Ms Brunoro: Nine times. Senator RENNICK: Yes, but what? Ms Brunoro: The variable renewable energy that is currently in the National Electricity Market. Senator RENNICK: So what’s the cost of that? Ms Brunoro: Again, Senator, it depends on the mix of technologies that you’re going to deploy. There are some figures that we can pull out for you around what they roughly think around different-solar versus wind for instance. We can actually seek to provideSenator RENNICK: So can you give me some definite costings on that? Not now, but on notice?

1. According to the December 2020 update, Australia emitted 499 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to a 5 per cent decrease on 2019. Australia’s grasslands are estimated to be 440 million hectares and native forest 147 million hectares, a total of approximately 587 hectares. It is estimated forest and grasslands absorb between 0.5 and 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Assuming an average of 1 tonne of CO2 absorbed by these landscapes then isn’t Australia already at net zero? 2. Can the CSIRO provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030? This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a given wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission, and storage products and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included. Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined. Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 3. If the CSIRO cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them? 4. Could the change in Earth’s temperature as a result of Australia undertaking the 43% reduction in CO2 measures please be stated in order to ensure appropriate benchmarking and accountability if targets are not met? 5. Could the CSIRO confirm if every country uses the same methods to calculate CO2 emission and reductions? If not, why not? What guarantees are there under the Net Zero that Australia won’t be disadvantaged as a result of signing up to the Net Zero pledge?

1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?

THE ISSUES

Click on an interest area to read articles and learn more about the work I am doing in Parliament.

Taxation, Finance & Economy

READ MORE

Education & Family

READ MORE

Energy

READ MORE

Environment

READ MORE

Health, Aged Care & Seniors

READ MORE

Primary Industries

READ MORE

Immigration & Foreign Affairs

READ MORE

Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism

READ MORE

Defence

READ MORE

Federation Reform

READ MORE

I may get kicked off social media soon for speaking too much truth so please join my mailing list so we can always stay in touch...

Thank you,

Gerard