There are no 'desired proteins' with regard to the modified spike mRNA
A follow-up to the Nature study by Mulroney et al.
“All of the harms from the COVID-19 injectable products were predictable, and preventable.”
Jessica Rose, PhD
A Nature publication by Mulroney et al. entitled N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting1 was published on December 6, 2023. The authors showed that N1-methylpseudouridine affects the fidelity of mRNA translation via ribosome stalling resulting in the production multiple, unique and potentially aberrant proteins by frameshifting.
To address concerns associated with these findings, Wiseman et al. quickly penned Ribosomal frameshifting and misreading of mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines produces “off-target”proteins and immune responses eliciting safety concerns: Comment on UK study by Mulroney et al.2
Some of the concerns arise from the codon-optimization of the modified mRNAs for use in the COVID-19 products. Codon optimization was done to achieve maximal protein expression in humans. It is based on the fact that specific organisms prefer to use specific codons called codon bias. We can exploit codon bias by crafting mRNAs according to the protein host producer using synonymous codon replacement, to increase translational efficiency and protein expression, without altering the sequence of the protein.3456
However, it is well-known that codon-optimization can lead to protein conformation, folding and stability problems whereby it may disrupt the fine-tuned timing of translation and ultimately protein function.78 Codon optimization can also lead to misfolding of mRNAs due to increased Guanine/Cytosine (GC content) in the optimized mRNA.91011
Synonymous codon replacement also results in a change in the multifunctional regulatory and structural roles of resulting proteins.12
There is, in fact, a significant enrichment of GC content (17% and 25% enrichments as per Pfizer and Moderna, respectively, as compared to SARS-CoV-2) as a result of the codon optimization that was done, and “this can lead to disease-associated cellular pathologies involving G4-quadruplexes” linked to prion diseases.13141516 Increased GC content significantly alters mRNA secondary structure as well,1718 and this can also lead to ribosomal pausing or stalling.
In addition to problems anticipated with codon optimization, the replacement of all of the Uridines to N1-methylpseudoridines in the mRNA used for the production of the COVID-19 injectable products lends to higher infidelity translation of proteins.19 The authors claim that slippery sequences - long runs of N1-methylpseudoridines - induce frameshifting whereby the ribosome simply slips over these sequences to shift the reading frame to produce entirely different proteins. According to their findings, this happened about 8% of the time. If we contextualize this finding to the in vivo human setting, the numbers of aberrant proteins that might be being produced is staggering.
A University of Cambridge write-up entitled Researchers redesign future mRNA therapeutics to prevent potentially harmful immune responses was also penned. The take home message from this summary was that the modified mRNA COVID-19 product platform can be rescued by simply ameliorating the slippery sequences responsible for the frame-shifting, by targeting them and mutating the slippery codons.
I would not recommend sliding down this very slippery sequence slope.
A note on on- and off-target protein production
I can think of at least two potentially looming problems pertaining to protein production in the context of the COVID-19 modified mRNA products.
On-target proteins being produced with high fidelity
Off-target proteins being produced with low fidelity
The potential for amyloidogenic protein production is present in the context of on-target protein production. It has been shown that a conserved coronavirus spike protein peptide forms amyloid nano-structures and hydrogels under pH-dependent (pH = 4) conditions.20 It has also been shown that a molecular mechanism for potential amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 S-protein in humans is facilitated by endoproteolysis by neutrophil elastase.21 Figure 1 demonstrates that there are at least 8 amyloidogenic peptides in the spike protein as per the BNT162b2 code. My concern is that in the context of high fidelity translation, at least one of these peptides are produced and cleaved into amyloidogenic peptides to induce proteinopathy. The degree and type of damage will depend on the locations of proteins being produced.
An even more recent preprint paper published online on December 9, 2023, demonstrates spontaneous formation of the amyloid-like self-assembling nanostructures of spike and N proteins that might induce proteinopathy or amyloidosis.22 This means that it’s possible that spike proteins produced in the human setting might be forming amyloids to induce neurodegeneration and other pathologies.
The potential for aberrant protein production is also present in the context of off-target protein production as per the newly published Nature paper referenced above. The authors show that off-target proteins are being produced in the context of the COVID modified mRNA shots due to out-of-frame translation. This so-called ‘frameshifting’ is likely enhanced by the combination of codon optimization and the replacement of Uridines to N1-methylpseudouridines. The fact that off-target proteins are being produced is very concerning. These proteins could induce an unintended immune response against proteins leading to autoimmunity, especially in the context of chimeric spike-human peptides.23
Combining 1. and 2. conceptually, molecular mimicry hotspots in the spike protein have already been discovered with autoimmune potential in the context of thrombocytopenia.24 A TQLPP motif in the spike protein shares similar antibody binding properties to the human protein thrombopoietin. Antibodies cross-reacting with thrombopoietin may induce thrombocytopenia, a condition observed in COVID-19 patients.25 The modified mRNA that encodes the spike in the BNT162b2 and Moderna COVID-19 shots are mimicked after the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 virus.26
Conclusions
In light of this new work by Mulroney el al., it is clear that these products require recall and investigation. It is curious that the manufacturers had every opportunity and resource to assess the dangers of off-target protein production for subsequent amerlioration - or at least illumination - of these dangers prior to injecting billions of people with them, but did not exploit these opportunities.
Perhaps we should heed the call of evolutionary cell biologist Allan Drummond: “Please do not monkey with these [codon] sites; they are optimized for some reason”, in reference to exploiting codon bias in mammals for optimization.
I agree with Allan Drummond.
Silent admiration is a better approach than silent mutation, and certainly, humility and humbleness should take precendence over hubris.
Mulroney, T.E., Pöyry, T., Yam-Puc, J.C. et al. N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting. Nature (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06800-3
Wiseman, D. M., PhD, Gutschi, L. M., Speicher, D. J., Rose, J., & McKernan, K. (2023, December 6). Ribosomal frameshifting and misreading of mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines produces “off-target” proteins and immune responses eliciting safety concerns: Comment on UK study by Mulroney et al. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nt8jh
Alyssa Cecchetelli. To Codon Optimize or Not: That is the Question. https://blog.addgene.org/to-codon-optimize-or-not-that-is-the-question
Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD. Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet. 2006 Feb;7(2):98-108. doi: 10.1038/nrg1770. PMID: 16418745
Bartoszewski RA, Jablonsky M, Bartoszewska S, Stevenson L, Dai Q, Kappes J, Collawn JF, Bebok Z. A synonymous single nucleotide polymorphism in DeltaF508 CFTR alters the secondary structure of the mRNA and the expression of the mutant protein. J Biol Chem. 2010 Sep 10;285(37):28741-8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.154575. Epub 2010 Jul 13. PMID: 20628052; PMCID: PMC2937902
Katsnelson, A. (2011). Breaking the silence. Nature Medicine, 17(12), 1536–1538. doi:10.1038/nm1211-1536
Mauro VP, Chappell SA (2014) A critical analysis of codon optimization in human therapeutics. Trends in Molecular Medicine 20:604–613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2014.09.003
Stadler M, Fire A (2011) Wobble base-pairing slows in vivo translation elongation in metazoans. RNA 17:2063–2073 . https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.02890211
McKernan, K., Kyriakopoulos, A. M., & McCullough, P. A. (2021, November 25). Differences in Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Replication Derived mRNA: Implications for Cell Biology and Future Disease. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bcsa6
Xia, X. Detailed Dissection and Critical Evaluation of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA Vaccines. Vaccines 2021, 9, 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070734
Stephanie Seneff, Greg Nigh, Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos, Peter A. McCullough, Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 164, 2022, 113008, ISSN 0278-6915, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008
S.A. Shabalina, N.A. Spiridonov, A. Kashina. Sounds of silence: synonymous nucleotides as a key to biological regulation and complexity. Nucleic Acids Res., 41 (4) (2013), pp. 2073-2094, 10.1093/nar/gks1205
Stephanie Seneff, Greg Nigh, Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos, Peter A. McCullough, Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 164, 2022, 113008, ISSN 0278-6915, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008
B. Herdy, C. Mayer, D. Varshney, G. Marsico, P. Murat, C. Taylor, C. D'Santos, D. Tannahill, S. Balasubramanian. Analysis of NRAS RNA G-quadruplex binding proteins reveals DDX3X as a novel interactor of cellular G-quadruplex containing transcripts. Nucleic Acids Res., 46 (21) (2018), pp. 11592-11604, 10.1093/nar/gky861
Wang E, Thombre R, Shah Y, Latanich R, Wang J. G-Quadruplexes as pathogenic drivers in neurodegenerative disorders. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021 May 21;49(9):4816-4830. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab164. PMID: 33784396; PMCID: PMC8136783
G. Tetz, V. Tetz. Prion-like domains in spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 differ across its variants and enable changes in affinity to ACE2. Microorganisms, 10 (2022), p. 280, 10.3390/microorganisms10020280
McKernan, K., Kyriakopoulos, A. M., & McCullough, P. A. (2021, November 25). Differences in Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Replication Derived mRNA: Implications for Cell Biology and Future Disease. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bcsa6
Park, J.W., Lagniton, P.N.P., Liu, Y., Xu, R.H. (2021). mRNA vaccines for COVID-19: what, why and how. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 17(6), 1446-1460. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.59233
Morais P, Adachi H, Yu YT. The Critical Contribution of Pseudouridine to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Nov 4;9:789427. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.789427. PMID: 34805188; PMCID: PMC8600071
Valeria Castelletto & Ian W. Hamley. Amyloid and Hydrogel Formation of a Peptide Sequence from a Coronavirus Spike Protein. CS Nano 2022, 16, 2, 1857–1867. Publication Date:January 4, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.1c10658
Sofie Nyström and Per Hammarström. Amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2022 144 (20), 8945-8950. DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c03925
Morozova, Olga V. and Manuvera, Valentin A. and Barinov, Nikolay A. and Subcheva, Elena N. and Laktyushkin, Victor S. and Ivanov, Dimitri A. and Lazarev, Vassili N. and Klinov, Dmitry V., Self-Assembling Amyloid-Like Nanostructures from SARS-CoV-2 S1, S2, RBD and N Recombinant Proteins. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4592840 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4592840
McKernan, K., Kyriakopoulos, A. M., & McCullough, P. A. (2021, November 25). Differences in Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Replication Derived mRNA: Implications for Cell Biology and Future Disease. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bcsa6
Nunez-Castilla, J.; Stebliankin, V.; Baral, P.; Balbin, C.A.; Sobhan, M.; Cickovski, T.; Mondal, A.M.; Narasimhan, G.; Chapagain, P.; Mathee, K.; et al. Potential Autoimmunity Resulting from Molecular Mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Human Proteins. Viruses 2022, 14, 1415. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14071415
Bhattacharjee S, Banerjee M. Immune Thrombocytopenia Secondary to COVID-19: a Systematic Review. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020;2(11):2048-2058. doi: 10.1007/s42399-020-00521-8. Epub 2020 Sep 19. PMID: 32984764; PMCID: PMC7501509
Martínez-Flores D, Zepeda-Cervantes J, Cruz-Reséndiz A, Aguirre-Sampieri S, Sampieri A, Vaca L. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Based on the Spike Glycoprotein and Implications of New Viral Variants. Front Immunol. 2021 Jul 12;12:701501. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.701501. PMID: 34322129; PMCID: PMC8311925
OK, so is it the time to accept the unspeakable? Considering various reports from a number of countries and the related stats, there is only one final conclusion. We will all die much faster than expected.
The first wave are those who took the injection, and the delayed effect will take its toll, and that will take how long, a year, two, or three? Say, 2/3 of the population of the Earth. The remaining 30% of us will die from the disruption of the social mechanisms, disappearance of those (the first wave) who could work, produce food, provide services, plus the Mad Max reality, plus absence of healthcare services (these will die out mostly in the first wave), plus the destruction of the energy infrastructure.
Forget kids, schools, education, the elderly. Forget pronouns and all other distractions.
How long will that take? Two years, optimistically? Are we facing a 5-10 years’ horizon to the final death of the whole 8 billion people?
Or are we denying it by producing more and more peer-reviewed articles and disclosing more data from official sources? How much more data is needed, how many more sudden deaths, how many more conferences and summits, articles in media, podcasts and substack articles? Where is the cut-off point to start doing something tangible about it?
Or… does it really matter?
As I read about the “revelations” we are observing, I can only think of how they are only the results of simple experimentation that would have come about in a lab if anyone had bothered.
As an aside, given the 30 years of failed launching of mRNA injectables, I tend to believe all of what we are seeing are only replicated results of previous lab work.
In any case, how silly to have thought for a moment the workings of this technology was “safe”, stayed in the arm etc etc. It is disgusting how how I was scolded for daring to think aloud as a layperson. Shame on those who dared oppose me during that time. Time has judged us all. Safe and effective MY ARSE