Analysis of 179 new Ebola virus sequences from patient samples collected in Guinea between March 2014 and January 2015 shows how different lineages evolved and spread in West Africa. Miles Carroll and colleagues report describe the genetic evolution of Ebola virus circulating in West Africa, based on 179 new virus sequences from patient samples collected in Guinea between March 2014 and January 2015. Their analysis shows how different lineages evolved and spread in West Africa between Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. West Africa is currently witnessing the most extensive Ebola virus (EBOV) outbreak so far recorded1,2,3. Until now, there have been 27,013 reported cases and 11,134 deaths. The origin of the virus is thought to have been a zoonotic transmission from a bat to a two-year-old boy in December 2013 (ref. 2). From this index case the virus was spread by human-to-human contact throughout Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. However, the origin of the particular virus in each country and time of transmission is not known and currently relies on epidemiological analysis, which may be unreliable owing to the difficulties of obtaining patient information. Here we trace the genetic evolution of EBOV in the current outbreak that has resulted in multiple lineages. Deep sequencing of 179 patient samples processed by the European Mobile Laboratory, the first diagnostics unit to be deployed to the epicentre of the outbreak in Guinea, reveals an epidemiological and evolutionary history of the epidemic from March 2014 to January 2015. Analysis of EBOV genome evolution has also benefited from a similar sequencing effort of patient samples from Sierra Leone. Our results confirm that the EBOV from Guinea moved into Sierra Leone, most likely in April or early May. The viruses of the Guinea/Sierra Leone lineage mixed around June/July 2014. Viral sequences covering August, September and October 2014 indicate that this lineage evolved independently within Guinea. These data can be used in conjunction with epidemiological information to test retrospectively the effectiveness of control measures, and provides an unprecedented window into the evolution of an ongoing viral haemorrhagic fever outbreak.

To overcome pandemics, such as COVID-19, vaccines are urgently needed at very high volumes. Here we assess the techno-economic feasibility of producing RNA vaccines for the demand associated with a global vaccination campaign. Production process performance is assessed for three messenger RNA (mRNA) and one self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccines, all currently under clinical development, as well as for a hypothetical next-generation saRNA vaccine. The impact of key process design and operation uncertainties on the performance of the production process was assessed. The RNA vaccine drug substance (DS) production rates, volumes and costs are mostly impacted by the RNA amount per vaccine dose and to a lesser extent by the scale and titre in the production process. The resources, production scale and speed required to meet global demand vary substantially in function of the RNA amount per dose. For lower dose saRNA vaccines, global demand can be met using a production process at a scale of below 10 L bioreactor working volume. Consequently, these small-scale processes require a low amount of resources to set up and operate. RNA DS production can be faster than fill-to-finish into multidose vials; hence the latter may constitute a bottleneck.

RNA-based products have emerged as one of the most promising and strategic technologies for global vaccination, infectious disease control, and future therapy development. The assessment of critical quality attributes (CQAs), product-process interactions, relevant process analytical technologies, and process modeling capabilities can feed into a robust Quality by Design (QbD) framework for future development, design, and control of manufacturing processes. QbD implementation will help the RNA technology reach its full potential and will be central to the development, pre-qualification, and regulatory approval of rapid response, disease-agnostic RNA platform production processes.

To stop the spread of future epidemics and meet infant vaccination demands in low‐ and middle‐income countries, flexible, rapid and low‐cost vaccine development and manufacturing technologies are required. Vaccine development platform technologies that can produce a wide range of vaccines are emerging, including: a) humanized, high‐yield yeast recombinant protein vaccines; b) insect cell‐baculovirus ADDomer vaccines; c) Generalized Modules for Membrane Antigens (GMMA) vaccines; d) RNA vaccines. Herein, existing and future platforms are assessed in terms of addressing challenges of scale, cost, and responsiveness. To assess the risk and feasibility of the four emerging platforms, the following six metrics are applied: 1) technology readiness; 2) technological complexity; 3) ease of scale‐up; 4) flexibility for the manufacturing of a wide range of vaccines; 5) thermostability of the vaccine product at tropical ambient temperatures; and 6) speed of response from threat identification to vaccine deployment. The assessment indicated that technologies in the order of increasing feasibility and decreasing risk are the yeast platform, ADDomer platform, followed by RNA and GMMA platforms. The comparative strengths and weaknesses of each technology are discussed in detail, illustrating the associated development and manufacturing needs and priorities.

Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are the leading technology for RNA delivery, given the success of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA (mRNA) vaccines, and small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapies (patisiran). However, optimization of LNP process parameters and compositions for larger RNA payloads such as self-amplifying RNA (saRNA), which can have complex secondary structures, have not been carried out. Furthermore, the interactions between process parameters, critical quality attributes (CQAs), and function, such as protein expression and cellular activation, are not well understood. Here, we used two iterations of design of experiments (DoE) (definitive screening design and Box-Behnken design) to optimize saRNA formulations using the leading, FDA-approved ionizable lipids (MC3, ALC-0315, and SM-102). We observed that PEG is required to preserve the CQAs and that saRNA is more challenging to encapsulate and preserve than mRNA. We identified three formulations to minimize cellular activation, maximize cellular activation, or meet a CQA profile while maximizing protein expression. The significant parameters and design of the response surface modeling and multiple response optimization may be useful for designing formulations for a range of applications, such as vaccines or protein replacement therapies, for larger RNA cargoes.