Suppr超能文献

用于治疗应用的细胞外囊泡分离方法比较。

Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications.

作者信息

Williams Soraya, Fernandez-Rhodes Maria, Law Alice, Peacock Ben, Lewis Mark P, Davies Owen G

机构信息

School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.

NanoFCM Co., Ltd, Medicity, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

J Tissue Eng. 2023 May 23;14:20417314231174609. doi: 10.1177/20417314231174609. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

While extracellular vesicles (EVs) continue to gain interest for therapeutic applications, their clinical translation is limited by a lack of optimal isolation methods. We sought to determine how universally applied isolation methods impact EV purity and yield. EVs were isolated by ultracentrifugation (UC), polyethylene glycol precipitation, Total Exosome Isolation Reagent, an aqueous two-phase system with and without repeat washes or size exclusion chromatography (SEC). EV-like particles could be detected for all isolation methods but varied in their purity and relative expression of surface markers (Alix, Annexin A2, CD9, CD63 and CD81). Assessments of sample purity were dependent on the specificity of characterisation method applied, with total particle counts and particle to protein (PtP) ratios often not aligning with quantitative measures of tetraspanin surface markers obtained using high-resolution nano-flow cytometry. While SEC resulted in the isolation of fewer particles with a relatively low PtP ratio (1.12 × 10 ± 1.43 × 10 vs highest recorded; ATPS/R 2.01 × 10 ± 1.15 × 10,  ⩽ 0.05), EVs isolated using this method displayed a comparatively high level of tetraspanin positivity (e.g. ExoELISA CD63⁺ particles; 1.36 × 10  1.18 × 10 vs ATPS/R 2.58 × 10  1.92 × 10,  ⩽ 0.001). Results originating from an accompanying survey designed to evaluate pragmatic considerations surrounding method implementation (e.g. scalability and cost) identified that SEC and UC were favoured for overall efficiency. However, reservations were highlighted in the scalability of these methods, which could potentially hinder downstream therapeutic applications. In conclusion, variations in sample purity and yield were evident between isolation methods, while standard non-specific assessments of sample purity did not align with advanced quantitative high-resolution analysis of EV surface markers. Reproducible and specific assessments of EV purity will be critical for informing therapeutic studies.

摘要

尽管细胞外囊泡(EVs)在治疗应用方面持续引发关注,但其临床转化受到缺乏最佳分离方法的限制。我们试图确定普遍应用的分离方法如何影响EV的纯度和产量。通过超速离心(UC)、聚乙二醇沉淀、总外泌体分离试剂、有无重复洗涤的双水相系统或尺寸排阻色谱(SEC)来分离EV。所有分离方法均可检测到类EV颗粒,但其纯度和表面标志物(Alix、膜联蛋白A2、CD9、CD63和CD81)的相对表达有所不同。样品纯度的评估取决于所应用表征方法的特异性,总颗粒计数和颗粒与蛋白质(PtP)比率通常与使用高分辨率纳米流式细胞术获得的四跨膜蛋白表面标志物的定量测量结果不一致。虽然SEC分离出的颗粒较少,PtP比率相对较低(1.12×10±1.43×10,与记录的最高值相比;ATPS/R为2.01×10±1.15×10,P⩽0.05),但使用该方法分离的EV显示出相对较高水平的四跨膜蛋白阳性(例如,ExoELISA CD63⁺颗粒;1.36×10 1.18×10,与ATPS/R的2.58×10 1.92×10相比,P⩽0.001)。一项旨在评估围绕方法实施的实际考虑因素(如可扩展性和成本)的附带调查结果表明,SEC和UC因其整体效率而受到青睐。然而,这些方法的可扩展性存在问题,这可能会潜在地阻碍下游治疗应用。总之,分离方法之间样品纯度和产量的差异很明显,而样品纯度的标准非特异性评估与EV表面标志物的先进定量高分辨率分析不一致。对EV纯度进行可重复和特异性评估对于指导治疗研究至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/500d/10214056/265476aade48/10.1177_20417314231174609-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验