Molecular evaluation of five different isolation methods for extracellular vesicles reveals different clinical applicability and subcellular origin.
> 商业许可源文 · EUROPE_PMC · [CC-BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)
书目信息
作者摘要（按来源许可复用）
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are increasingly tested as therapeutic vehicles and biomarkers, but still EV subtypes are not fully characterised. To isolate EVs with few co-isolated entities, a combination of methods is needed. However, this is time-consuming and requires large sample volumes, often not feasible in most clinical studies or in studies where small sample volumes are available. Therefore, we compared EVs rendered by five commonly used methods based on different principles from conditioned cell medium and 250 μl or 3 ml plasma, that is, precipitation (ExoQuick ULTRA), membrane affinity (exoEasy Maxi Kit), size-exclusion chromatography (qEVoriginal), iodixanol gradient (OptiPrep), and phosphatidylserine affinity (MagCapture). EVs were characterised by electron microscopy, Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis, Bioanalyzer, flow cytometry, and LC-MS/MS. The different methods yielded samples of different morphology, particle size, and proteomic profile. For the conditioned medium, Izon 35 isolated the highest number of EV proteins followed by exoEasy, which also isolated fewer non-EV proteins. For the plasma samples, exoEasy isolated a high number of EV proteins and few non-EV proteins, while Izon 70 isolated the most EV proteins. We conclude that no method is perfect for all studies, rather, different methods are suited depending on sample type and interest in EV subtype, in addition to sample volume and budget.
合规说明
本页保存的是来源文献书目信息及其在 CC-BY 许可下公开的作者摘要。除去除来源 HTML 标签和规范化空白外，摘要未作内容改写。本页不代表 GeniOmics 的医学建议；原文版权、署名和许可仍归原权利人，请通过原始记录核对最新版本、更正或撤稿状态。