I've read the article:


regarding a prospective method of immunization against sars-cov-2 using the spike protein of the virus and micro-needle array delivery (MNA) and I've wondered if using the virus instead of the spike protein makes sense. What are the trade-offs? Is the risk of the virus spreading through the bloodstream in the body very high? Is culturing the virus or producing the spike protein more expensive? Can the sars-cov-2 virus be de-activated after being produced to make it safer?

  • I have a problem with always having the tendency to edit the question to make it more clear. For example title "Possibility of using" instead of "Safety of using". I'm not sure how acceptable for this site it is to edit often if it doesn't change the meaning too much (just small improvements). Can someone clarify?
    – yoneru
    Apr 5, 2020 at 5:49
  • 1
    You can keep editing as much as you like to clarify the meaning. Apr 5, 2020 at 6:38

1 Answer 1


Using weakened virus, or attenuated virus, is very old biotechnology to create vaccines. I doubt that there is any ethics committee that would sanction the use of live attenuated virus as a vaccine through whatever route as there is no data on safety via this route.

Also, you would want to be able inject enough virions to induce an immune response without killing the patient.

The latest technology is to use mRNA which would be used by the body to create the proteins seen on the virus, and the body would then create the antibodies against these proteins.

Moderna is studying its messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine in the US, and CanSino Biologics has begun a trial of its adenoviral vector vaccine in China.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.