I’m surprised that no one picked up on this difference a few months ago. Back in June, Moderna bragged in a public broadcast that they had a technical advantage over BioNTech and literally everyone snooze on the data. Also, Moderna lost an extremely public patent battle between them and Arbutus over the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology being used for mRNA-1273 in July[1] . I would also note that CureVac is claiming 3 month stability at 2–8C for their LNP so that’s another company that can bypass these cold chain concerns. This cold chain concern with mRNA vaccines was long known about which was why Bill Gates was telling everyone who would listen that we had to invest in updating our infrastructure back in 2016.
It has been long known that RNA is a chemical labile macromolecule due to both the chemical properties of its backbone as well as its susceptibility to ribonucleases. However, it was demonstrated around 25 years ago that scientists can overcome these stability issues using the right formulation and the appropriate chemical substitutions.[2]
When mRNA therapeutics first emerged onto the scene back in 2010, there was a huge effort to expand the existing nanoparticle delivery systems. My own lab was consulted by Moderna since we held some IP for VLP nucleic acid delivery technologies. Ultimately the field shifted towards lipid nanoparticle systems due to their more attractive manufacturability and chemical properties. Every RNA company has their own LNP platform that they use and each one is tailored to the needs and objective of the company. Alnylam’s Onpattro was recognized as the first FDA approved siRNA-LNP delivery system.
<snip>