Compared to other vaccines, the inherent properties of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines and their interaction with lipid nanoparticles make them considerably unstable throughout their life cycles, impacting their effectiveness and global accessibility. It is imperative to improve mRNA vaccine stability and investigate the factors influencing stability. Since mRNA structure, excipients, lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems, and manufacturing processes are the primary factors affecting mRNA vaccine stability, optimizing mRNA structure and screening excipients can effectively improve mRNA vaccine stability. Moreover, improving manufacturing processes could also prepare thermally stable mRNA vaccines with safety and efficacy. Here, we review the regulatory guidance associated with mRNA vaccine stability, summarize key factors affecting mRNA vaccine stability, and propose a possible research path to improve mRNA vaccine stability.

Owing to the success of linear mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, biopharmaceutical companies and research teams worldwide have attempted to develop more stable circular RNA (circRNA) vaccines and have achieved some preliminary results. This review aims to summarize key findings and important progress made in circRNA research, the in vivo metabolism and biological functions of circRNAs, and research progress and production process of circRNA vaccines. Further, considerations regarding the quality control of circRNA vaccines are highlighted herein, and the main challenges and problem-solving strategies in circRNA vaccine development and quality control are outlined to provide a reference for circRNA vaccine-related research.

Herpangina (HA) and hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) are common infectious diseases caused by human enteroviruses and frequently occurr in young children. Previous published studies have mainly focused on HFMD, while the HA epidemiological and etiological characteristics in mainland China have not been described. From June, 2013 to March, 2014, HA and HFMD patients were monitored in participants from clinical trial of EV-A71 vaccine conducted during 2012–2013. A total of 95 HA patients and 161 HFMD patients were defined. Enteroviruses of HA samples were differentiated into 17 serotypes (EV-A71, CV-A16, CV-A24, E6, CV-B5, CV-A22, CV-A6, CV-A10, CV-B3, E9, CV-A9, CV-B4, CV-B2, E1, E7, E21 and CV-A20), the most common serotypes were EV-A71(10/95,10.5%), CV-A16(4/95,4.2%) and CV-A24(4/95,4.2%); while enteroviruses detected from HFMD samples were classfied into 21 serotypes ( EV-A71, CV-A16, CV-A10, CV-A6, E6, CV-B3, CV-B5, CV-A9, E9, CV-B2, CV-B4, E3, E11, E15, E16, CV-A1, EV-A69, E5, CA22, CA24 and EV99), the most common serotypes were EV-A71(28/161,17.4%), CV-A16(7/161,4.4%) and CV-A10(5/161,3.1%). The first HA epidemic peak occurred in summer and a second smaller peak occurred in January. In HA patients, the body temperature (P < 0.0001) and the incidence of fever (P < 0.05) were significant higher than those in HFMD patients. Between HA and HFMD patients infected with EV-A71, no significant differences were found in age, sex, circulating season, and the viral genome diversity. In summary, we firstly reported the epidemiological and etiological characteristics of HA in mainland China. Developing a multivalent vaccine will be helpful for the control of the HA/HFMD epidemic.

Background: To characterize the human humoral immune response against enterovirus 71 (EV71) infection and map human epitopes on the viral capsid proteins.Methods: A series of 256 peptides spanning the capsid proteins (VP1, VP2, VP3) of BJ08 strain (genomic C4) were synthesized. An indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was carried out to detect anti-EV71 IgM and IgG in sera of infected children in acute or recovery phase. The partially overlapped peptides contained 12 amino acids and were coated in the plate as antigen (0.1 μg/μl). Sera from rabbits immunized with inactivated BJ08 virus were also used to screen the peptide panel.Results: A total of 10 human anti-EV71 IgM epitopes (vp1-14 in VP1; vp2-6, 21, 40 and 50 in VP2 and vp3-10, 12, 15, 24 and 75 in VP3) were identified in acute phase sera. In contrast, only one anti-EV71 IgG epitope in VP1 (vp1-15) was identified in sera of recovery stage. Four rabbit anti-EV71 IgG epitopes (vp1-14, 31, 54 and 71) were identified and mapped to VP1.Conclusion: These data suggested that human IgM epitopes were mainly mapped to VP2 and VP3 with multi-epitope responses occurred at acute infection, while the only IgG epitope located on protein VP1 was activated in recovery phase sera. The dynamic changes of humoral immune response at different stages of infection may have public health significance in evaluation of EV71 vaccine immunogenicity and the clinical application of diagnostic reagents.