Genomic Vaccines Fight Disease in Ways Not Possible Before

Vaccines composed of DNA or RNA, instead of protein, could enable rapid development of preventives for infectious diseases

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Standard vaccines to prevent infectious diseases consist of killed or weakened pathogens or proteins from those microorganisms. Vaccines that treat cancer also rely on proteins. In contrast, a new kind of vaccine, which is poised to make major inroads in medicine, consists of genes. Genomic vaccines promise to offer many advantages, including fast manufacture when a virus, such as Zika or Ebola, suddenly becomes more virulent or widespread. They have been decades in the making, but dozens have now entered clinical trials.

Most vaccines work by teaching the immune system to recognize a foe. They accomplish this trick by delivering a dead or weakened pathogen; the immune system recognizes that certain bits of protein, called antigens, on the surface of the pathogen are foreign and prepares to pounce the next time it encounters them. (Many modern vaccines deliver only the antigens, leaving out the pathogens.) To treat cancer, doctors may deliver other proteins that enhance immune responses. These proteins can include the immune system’s own guided missiles—antibodies.

Genomic vaccines take the form of DNA or RNA that encodes desired proteins. On injection, the genes enter cells, which then churn out the selected proteins. Compared with manufacturing proteins in cell culturesor eggs, producing the genetic material should be simpler and less expensive.Further, a single vaccine can include the coding sequences for multiple proteins, and it can be changed readily if a pathogen mutates or properties need to be added. Public health experts, for instance, revise the flu vaccine annually, but sometimes the vaccine they choose does not match the viral strains that circulate when flu season comes. In the future, investigators could sequence the genomes of the circulating strains and produce a better-matched vaccine in weeks. Genomics also enables a new twist on a vaccination approach known as passive immune transfer, in which antibodies are delivered instead of antigens. Scientists can now identify people who are resistant to a pathogen, isolate the antibodies that provide that protection and design a gene sequence that will induce a person’s cells to produce those antibodies.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


With such goals in mind, the U.S. government, academic labs and companies large and small are pursuing the technology. A range of clinical trials to test safety and immunogenicity are under way, including for avian influenza, Ebola, hepatitis C, HIV, and breast, lung, prostate, pancreatic and other cancers. And at least one trial is looking at efficacy: the National Institutes of Health has begun a multisite clinical trial to see if a DNA vaccine can protect against Zika.

Meanwhile researchers are working to improve the technology—for example, by finding more efficient ways to get the genes into cells and by improving the stability of the vaccines in heat. Oral delivery, which would be valuable where medical personnel are scarce, is not likely to be feasible anytime soon, butnasal administration is being studied as an alternative and is under study. Optimism is high that any remaining obstacles can be solved.

Geoffrey Ling, a retired U.S. Army colonel, is an expert in technology development and commercial transition. He is a professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and a partner of Ling and Associates.

More by Geoffrey Ling

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe