Sponsored by
One Account. Every Market. No Closing Bell.
Markets don't wait for Monday. News breaks on a Saturday morning, and most traders can do nothing but watch.
Not on Liquid. Trade domestic and international equities, commodities, forex, crypto, and prediction markets — all from one account, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Liquid gives you access to any market, from anywhere, anytime. To us, access is arbitrage.
Getting started takes under 10 minutes: log in with Google, deposit with Apple Pay or a bank transfer, and trade from your phone or desktop — wherever you are in the world.
While everyone else is refreshing headlines and waiting for the open, you're already positioned. That's the difference between reacting to markets and actually trading them.
A vaccine's active ingredient was designed by computer simulation. It just passed its first human safety test.
For the first time, a coronavirus vaccine whose active ingredient came out of a computational design pipeline — not hand-picked by scientists in a lab — has been tested in people. The results were published this year in the peer-reviewed Journal of Infection.
Who built it, and how
The vaccine, called pEVAC-PS, comes from a University of Cambridge lab (Professor Jonathan Heeney's Lab of Viral Zoonotics) and its spin-out, DIOSynVax. The team fed genetic sequence data from across the Sarbecovirus family — SARS-CoV-2, the original SARS virus, and multiple bat-origin coronaviruses that haven't yet jumped to humans — into a computational pipeline, using machine learning to design a single "super-antigen" carrying features common to all of them.
Here's the nuance worth knowing: Cambridge's own press materials, and a quote from a National Institute for Health and Care Research official, call this an "AI-designed" vaccine. But the peer-reviewed paper itself never uses the word "AI" — it says "computationally designed." That's a real distinction. A human research team ran the design pipeline and validated the result in animals first; this is AI used as a design tool inside a human-directed process, not an AI inventing a vaccine on its own.
The trial, in plain numbers
39 healthy volunteers, aged 18–50, received the vaccine as a needle-free DNA shot at four escalating doses, enrolled between December 2021 and September 2023 at NIHR facilities in Southampton and Cambridge (trial registry ISRCTN87813400). The headline finding: it was safe, with no significant safety concerns at any dose. That's the entire job of a Phase I trial.
The immune response: real, but modest
This is where the published paper is more careful than most of the coverage of it. Volunteers developed measurable antibody responses to regions shared across the coronaviruses. But when researchers tested whether those antibodies could actually neutralize live virus, results were mixed — neutralizing activity, tested in only two of the four dose groups, rose modestly against specific SARS-CoV-2 variants, and barely moved against the original SARS virus. The authors' own words: the data "do not yet substantiate broad or robust neutralizing activity." Nearly every volunteer already had SARS-CoV-2 immunity from prior vaccination, which the authors say complicates reading the results cleanly.
What this doesn't prove
This is not a cure, and not yet a working universal vaccine. Phase I proves safety — nothing more. It doesn't show the vaccine prevents infection. A larger Phase II trial testing a broader population comes next; Phase III (does it actually stop infections at scale?) and regulatory approval sit further out still.
The real story here isn't "AI cured coronaviruses." It's that a computational design pipeline can get a genuinely novel vaccine candidate safely into a human trial — a capability that didn't exist a decade ago.