Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA

(
)
A ribosome translates mRNA (modified to reduce inflammation, i.e. modRNA) into the encoded protein
A ribosome translates mRNA (modified to reduce inflammation, i.e. modRNA) into the encoded protein
  • ... that Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine Tozinameran against SARS-CoV-2 is produced using the application of modRNA? Source: Christina Hohmann-Jeddi (2020-11-10). "Hoffnungsträger BNT162b2: Wie funktionieren mRNA-Impfstoffe?". Pharmazeutische Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  • ALT1:... that modRNA (pictured) is the key driving force behind the Moderna, Pfizer & BioNTech vaccines against COVID-19? Source: Weintraub, Karen (23 November 2020). "Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA in their COVID-19 vaccines. This never-before-used technology could transform how science fights diseases". USA TODAY. Retrieved 7 December 2020.
  • Comment: I prefer ALT1a (see below) as its covers all. Hoping for an early promotion if it passes for the interest of readers. Thank you.— Amkgp 💬 04:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Created by Gnom (talk). Nominated by Amkgp (talk) at 04:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

  • Hi, thank you for this nomination – this article was originally written in German by my dad, who is a retired professor of internal medicine. I only translated it from German into English. Let me know if I should look into the German-language sources to see if we can replace them with English ones. --Gnom (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gnom: It's OK as they are WP:RS. It would be very good if available english references are added beside the existing one without deleting them. I'll add the required {{Translated}} and {{Connected contributor}} flag on the talk page. — Amkgp 💬 09:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: could you please rewrite the second sentence in the Risks section (starting with "For example, if the encoded protein..."). It states "supposed to stimulate heart muscle cells to proliferate", but that in the (wrong) cells, it will "lead to proliferations". I understand what you're trying to say, but this may confuse some readers, who may interpret it as "it's supposed to proliferate, but in the wrong cells, it may proliferate". Mindmatrix 15:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for spotting this. --Gnom (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not reviewing the article. (I leave comments on some DYKs where I see minor issues that need to be addressed.) Mindmatrix 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You must have at least one inline citation for every paragraph of the article. The "Prerequisites" and "Principle" sections along with the first paragraph of the "Risks" section are wholely uncited. Otherwise, the hook is very catchy and so makes a great DYK. It is new and long enough and is neutral. The hook is cited inline and I don't see any copyvio issues now, but will recheck once the citations have been fixed up and it is ready to review again. Great work so far! Footlessmouse (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The risks section could benefit from some tweaking. It comes off as a bit dramatic and as a WP:CSECTION. The second paragraph seems especially unnecessary, as modRNA does not change the genome of cells and nowhere in the article is the suggestion that it might until this point. CMD (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gnom:, Can you have a look to the minor issue pointed above. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 09:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I may have been getting ahead of myself trying to review this one, I have no experience with medical pages and the reliability of medical sources and such, so it would probably be better to have a more experienced reviewer go over it. Thanks for correcting that, though, whoever reviews it was going to demand it. Please also work on the Risks section as outlined above and make sure there are inline references in both paragraphs. Great job! Footlessmouse (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Pending article issues resolved with help of soupvector and others. Also, added image after discussion with the subject expert. Its now ready — Amkgp 💬 18:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • A new full review is needed here — Amkgp 💬 20:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Amkgp: Overall, good work. New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig finds no copyvios. There are still a few paragraphs missing citations. References 8–11 appear to be popular media articles, so they can't be used to cite medical information. On a first read-through the text looks well-written and accurate. The only issue I found was that the lead says "mRNA vaccines, the first of which were COVID-19 vaccines"; it should be specified that they were the first mRNA vaccines approved, not the first ones conceived or tested. I'll take a closer look at the text one the citations issues are fixed. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH):, I have introduced additional WP:MEDRS at places with refs 8-11 (previously). I have modified the lead as An important application is the development of mRNA vaccines, the first of which were approved COVID-19 vaccines. — Amkgp 💬 04:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Amkgp: On a closer look, I've found a few issues to fix:
  • There were some places where sources didn't verify all of the cited text. I believe the text is essentially correct, it's just a matter of adding the right source that verifies it. I've added citation needed and similar templates where appropriate.
  • It's not clear why the three vaccines in the Vaccines section are mentioned to the exclusion of others. There are five mentioned in the source.
  • The mRNA vaccines were the first authorized in the U.S. and I think the EU, but there were earlier authorizations of other types of vaccines in China and Russia. Also, they got an Emergency Use Authorization rather than an approval in most countries. I'd prefer a medical citation for this fact if possible.
Looking at the hooks, they are both going to need medical citations. I'm not sure about ALT1's claim that modRNA is "the key driving force", as the nanoparticle delivery system is likely also pretty key. Calling it "a driving force" might be verifiable.
The image itself is fine, but it shows translation of mRNA generally, and not modRNA specifically, and that needs to be reflected in the hook. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A ribosome translates mRNA into the encoded protein
A ribosome translates mRNA into the encoded protein
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): (1) Added proper WP:MEDRS where highlighted (2) Only three are present as they were in the final stages. Its a work in progress so others can be added. Popular current examples are the three. I think it is not related to DYK (3) I have modified the ALT1 hook and added as one of the key. See below (4) Image caption can be changed but it may become too much technical and long which may not drive/attract people to read the article through DYK (5) Regarding medical ref for hook, I could find WP:MEDRS for phase-I/II and final efficacy report that I have added in the article, the latest is in bioRxiv added (to be replaced when peer review is completed) and UK MHRA approval + US FDA approvals for BNT162b2. Also "key driving force" I want to mean "essential component to succeed". Its make it hooky. See here for verification purpose. — Amkgp 💬 06:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Getting closer, but some of the new sources still aren't quite right:
  • Second paragraph of Principle: the source says that 5-methylcytosine is in fact naturally occurring, and doesn't mention N1-methyl-pseudouridine
  • First paragraph of Risks: I don't see where the source discusses malignant growth in off-target cells.
  • Second paragraph of Risks: the source for the third sentence doesn't seem to mention reverse transcription. The sourcing for this paragraph in general is a bit iffy. It's making statements about modDNA being reverse transcribed, but most of the sources are about viruses generally, making it WP:SYNTHESIS as currently presented. This really needs solid sources that specifically discuss modRNA and reverse transcription together.
  • Tissue regeneration: the source mentions natural RNA modifications as targets for therapy, not as therapeutics themselves.
In general, it's hard to hunt down sources for existing text; the text should be written to follow the sources, rather than the other way around. It may be easier to just find a source or two specifically about risks of modDNA and rewrite the Risks section from scratch. In some cases it might be easier to just remove the text. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) I have removed the 'risk' section and added other missing refs — Amkgp 💬 08:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Amkgp: Okay, the article is good now. I also made some tweaks to the hook and caption. The remaining hooks are verified by [1]. This is good to go. Thanks for taking this on. It's difficult even for specialists to write in such technical areas, and I'm glad this information is now available in English. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nucleoside-modified_messenger_RNA&oldid=995708186"