View source for Talk:DNA vaccine/Archive 1

{{tan}}

== Complete rewrite ==
I've done a complete rewrite of this article. Biochemza 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== TODO: Add section on Safety ==
Including: Safety Issues, Integration, Tolerance, Autoimmunity, Anti-DNA antibodies. Biochemza 22:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

==Introduction/lead==
Hi there, the introduction should be part of the summary, this is explained in the guide to authors on layout - [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]], part of the main [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]. Hope this helps, [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely this lead paragraph is too long though? Biochemza 15:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Biochemza|Biochemza]] ([[User talk:Biochemza|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Biochemza|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yes, it does need to be condensed a little bit, but the lead isn't like the abstract of a paper, more a cross between an abstract and an introduction. Have a look at some of the other scientific featured articles, such as [[bacteria]], [[DNA]] or [[enzyme]] to get an example of format. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

== Zika ==

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602073/us-government-starts-test-of-zika-vaccine-in-humans/

U.S. Government Starts Test of Zika Vaccine in Humans

Scientists are close behind an outbreak of a mosquito-spread disease in the U.S. with a possible fix.

by Antonio Regalado  August 2, 2016

The U.S. government on Tuesday for the first time tested an experimental vaccine against the Zika virus on an American volunteer.

The start of the vaccine trial, at the National Institutes of Health in Maryland, comes as officials were racing to contain an outbreak of the Zika virus in Miami, where it has already infected at least 14 people.

A vaccine could roll back the epidemic from U.S. borders, but it won’t be known for months if the government’s vaccine is safe, and it could take years longer to prove it’s effective.

The study involves a novel type of vaccination called a DNA vaccine, in which genes from the virus are shot under high pressure into a person’s arm. While easy to design, no DNA vaccine has ever reached commercialization.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.143.68.7|24.143.68.7]] ([[User talk:24.143.68.7|talk]]) 09:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Human Applications? ==
"One DNA vaccine has been approved for human use." Is it possible to provide a reference for this statement in the Introduction? The rest of the article seems to indicate that there any human applications are currently experimental only.
[[Special:Contributions/82.173.146.134|82.173.146.134]] ([[User talk:82.173.146.134|talk]]) 09:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

== Vaccination vs immunization move ==

This article was recently moved from "DNA vaccination" to "DNA immunization". Google search and PubMed return more results for "DNA vaccination", so isn't that a more appropriate title? [[User:Velayinosu|Velayinosu]] ([[User talk:Velayinosu|talk]]) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
:I moved it back.

:[[User:Genetics4good|Genetics4good]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=DNA_vaccination&diff=991709781&oldid=991529757 this]? Moving an article like this one should be the result of a [[WP:Requested moves]] discussion. If you want it moved, start a WP:Requested moves discussion. You claimed that "DNA vaccination" is not a term that is commonly used. But the sources in this article indicate otherwise. And there is what Velayinosu stated above. When it comes to rationales for moving this article, you should be considering [[WP:Common name]] and [[WP:MEDTITLE]]. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 01:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:: I disagree it's a better name, just because you get more hits on "DNA vaccination". The thought here is also that "DNA immunization" appears to be a bit bigger in scope rather then just DNA vaccines. I don't get the exact technical difference between a regular gene therapy and a DNA vaccine (is there one?), but I assume it's just differentiated by its use (DNA vaccines are only used as a preventive measure (against not yet existent personal infections by diseases), whereas gene therapies are used only on people already carrying a (genetic) disease. I'm assuming that by increasing to scope by moving it to DNA immunization, you can also include those techniques that are not administered every time to each patient, but you can include heritable measures too (see [[Human_germline_engineering]] and also see my comment at the talk page there concerning non-somatic gene therapies (not sure they exist or can even be made, but if they can be made, it's important in this context, see [[Talk:Human_germline_engineering]])
--[[User:Genetics4good|Genetics4good]] ([[User talk:Genetics4good|talk]]) 11:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

== Requested move 3 December 2020 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''

The result of the move request was: '''Consensus to move''' to [[DNA vaccine]] instead.  [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 10:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
----


[[:DNA vaccination]] → {{no redirect|DNA immunization}} – See issues mentioned above [[User:Genetics4good|Genetics4good]] ([[User talk:Genetics4good|talk]]) 11:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) <small>—'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;''[[User:BegbertBiggs|BegbertBiggs]]&nbsp;([[User talk:BegbertBiggs|talk]])'' 23:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)</small>
: A lot of the article is about DNA vaccines/vaccination (e.g. theory, examples etc.), as are the refs.  Shouldn't it be called '''DNA vaccine'''? [[Special:Contributions/109.255.90.188|109.255.90.188]] ([[User talk:109.255.90.188|talk]]) 14:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
::Absolutely agree that a better name would be DNA vaccine - would also be in line with RNA vaccine page.--[[User:Iztwoz|Iztwoz]] ([[User talk:Iztwoz|talk]]) 22:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
:::I also support moving this article to '''DNA vaccine''' per the references and to match up with the RNA vaccine article name. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 05:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed.  <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

==Update for COVID 19 ?==
Some of the candidate vaccines for COVID19 use DNA e.g. INO-4800.  And there's a new(?) delivery technique called electroporation which could be mentioned.  As I understand it a small electric pulse opens pores in the cell to let more plasmids in.  Is anyone curating?  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shannock9|Shannock9]] ([[User talk:Shannock9#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shannock9|contribs]]) 16:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I think there is a much larger issue with that. I'll open a new section for that... see [[Talk:COVID-19 vaccine#Missing_Link_to_DNA_vaccine|here]] --[[User:Max schwalbe|Max schwalbe]] ([[User talk:Max schwalbe|talk]]) 07:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|DNA vaccine|answered=yes}}
Source Astrazeneca :  with hundreds of millions of DNA vaccines now given , it is important to understand the mechanism of action of the AZ.and other DNA vaccines.
The chimpanzee adenovirus infects the cell, gets the DNA into the cytoplasm of the cell. The body recognizes the DNA material and places it in the nucleas where all the other encoded DNA are stored and maintained. The Astra Zeneca researchers and investigators state that there is no incorporation of the genetically engineered piece of DNA into the rest of the body’s genome or DNA library. However, we know from studies on viruses including adenoviruses, that some DNA incorporation may occur. They explain the DNA is transcribed to messenger RNA  in the nucleus, exists the nucleus, then binds to a ribosome so that the genetic code written in the messenger RNA is followed. The steps in the cytosol with the binding of the ribosome that follows the goes pretty much along the same route that happens in the Pfizer BioNtech and Moderna.  The ribosome transcribes the instruction set to make the spike protein. This spike protein then results in the immune response to make the antibodies, activate the T cells, B cells, etc [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6D33:7500:57:BAA4:ECF0:3923|2001:8003:6D33:7500:57:BAA4:ECF0:3923]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:6D33:7500:57:BAA4:ECF0:3923|talk]]) 13:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|DNA vaccine|answered=yes}}
I request to change the following information in the opening paragraph
FROM:
An Indian company [[Cadila Healthcare]] is undertaking trials for Covid-19 vaccine using plasmid DNA technology, which if approved, will become the first DNA vaccine for human use.

TO:
An Indian company [[Cadila Healthcare]] has undergone trials for it's Covid-19 vaccine [[ZyCoV-D]] using plasmid DNA technology, which has been approved to emergency use in India. It is the first DNA vaccine for human use.

SOURCES:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/zycov-d-indias-first-covid-19-vaccine-for-those-above-12-gets-nod/article36021251.ece
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1747669 [[User:AgrMohit|mohitraj]] ([[User talk:AgrMohit|talk]]) 12:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{partly done|Partly done:}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Updated to say that it is approved, no reliable source for it being the first DNA vaccine. Sources only quote some guy from the Cadila Healthcare saying so, not that it is actually the case. It is the first (approved) DNA vaccine against covid. [[User:15|15]] ([[User talk:15|talk]]) 20:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|DNA vaccine|answered=yes}}
Please change the last sentence in the lead paragraph ''from''
*An Indian company Cadila Healthcare is undertaking trials for Covid-19 vaccine using plasmid DNA technology, which if approved, will become the first DNA vaccine for human use.
to
*An Indian company [[Cadila Healthcare]] has successfully completed trials for Covid-19 vaccine using plasmid DNA technology, which is now approved for emergency use. Thus, it became the first [[COVID-19]] DNA vaccine for human use.<ref>{{cite news |title=India gives emergency approval for world's first COVID-19 DNA vaccine |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/india-approves-zydus-cadilas-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-2021-08-20/ |work=Reuters |date=20 August 2021 |language=en}}</ref>
{{Talk reflist}} [[Special:Contributions/2409:4061:2E0C:3F5:D0A2:B5A:94BF:112F|2409:4061:2E0C:3F5:D0A2:B5A:94BF:112F]] ([[User talk:2409:4061:2E0C:3F5:D0A2:B5A:94BF:112F|talk]]) 17:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Reworded and moved to history, undue for lead. [[User:15|15]] ([[User talk:15|talk]]) 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|DNA vaccine|answered=yes}}
Add that Cadilla's DNA vaccine has been approved by India. Source-https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/zydus-cadila-s-three-dose-covid-vaccine-zycov-d-gets-dcgi-nod-for-eua-1843439-2021-08-20 [[Special:Contributions/1.186.77.18|1.186.77.18]] ([[User talk:1.186.77.18|talk]]) 02:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021 ==

{{edit semi-protected|DNA vaccine|answered=yes}}
Please change from
*it is the first DNA vaccine approved for humans.
to
*it is the first COVID 19 DNA vaccine approved for humans.

in the last line of the lead paragraph, because its not the first DNA vaccine but first DNA vaccine for [[COVID 19]]. The present statement is partially incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/42.105.102.119|42.105.102.119]] ([[User talk:42.105.102.119|talk]]) 10:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> What other DNA vaccines have been approved for use in humans? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

== Extremely technical discussion. ==

I predict that 95% of readers coming to this page will find it nearly useless, because nearly every sentence contains undefined technical terms while many sentences contain multiple such terms. Moreover for a naive reader, trying to follow up all the cross-references would be a nearly hopeless task because they also contain many undefined terms. I understand that trying to define each term here would vastly lengthen the article and is impractical. Nevertheless it would help a great deal if a separate, far less technical section was provided that summarized key points in simple language.  
I also recognize this is a widespread problem in many technical fields such as mathematics and physics. Perhaps someone could develop a standard for providing two levels of discussion in such cases.  (Forgive my ignorance if such a standard already exists.)
[[User:Burressd|Burressd]] ([[User talk:Burressd|talk]]) 09:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

== Potential of insertion into genome ==

The potential of integration in host genomes ist currently not in the article, although it is mentioned by several reviews.<ref name="Verbeke 2019">Rein Verbeke, Ine Lentacker, Stefaan C. De Smedt, Heleen Dewitte: [https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8628303/file/8628317.pdf ''Three decades of messenger RNA vaccine development.''] In: ''Nano Today.'' 28, 2019, S.&nbsp;100766, {{DOI|10.1016/j.nantod.2019.100766}}.</ref> The original reports are here: <ref name="Ledwith 2001">Ledwith B, J, Manam S, Troilo P, J, Barnum A, B, Pauley C, J, Griffiths II T, G, Harper L, B, Beare C, M, Bagdon W, J, Nichols W, W: Plasmid DNA Vaccines: Investigation of Integration into Host Cellular DNA following Intramuscular Injection in Mice. Intervirology 2000;43:258-272. {{DOI|10.1159/000053993}}.</ref><ref name="Wang 2004">Wang, Z., Troilo, P., Wang, X. et al. Detection of integration of plasmid DNA into host genomic DNA following intramuscular injection and electroporation. Gene Ther 11, 711–721 (2004).{{DOI|10.1038/sj.gt.3302213}}</ref><ref>H. Würtele, K. C. Little, P. Chartrand: ''Illegitimate DNA integration in mammalian cells.'' In: ''Gene therapy.'' Band 10, Nummer 21, Oktober 2003, S.&nbsp;1791–1799, {{DOI|10.1038/sj.gt.3302074}}, PMID 12960968.</ref>
<references />
--[[User:Ghilt|Ghilt]] ([[User talk:Ghilt|talk]]) 10:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)