Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24009896›Full record

ArticleJournal of extracellular vesicles2013

How pure are your vesicles?

Jason Webber, Aled Clayton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of extracellular vesicles, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 460 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
460citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

460 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pharmaceutics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Microorganisms · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Natural Product-Derived Vesicles in Nanotherapeutics.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2026
    Review
  13. Towards a Scalable Production ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

400 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jason WebberInstitute of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Aled Clayton

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose a straightforward method to estimate the purity of vesicle preparations by comparing the ratio of nano-vesicle counts to protein concentration, using tools such as the increasingly available NanoSight platform and a colorimetric protein assay such as the BCA-assay. Such an approach is simple enough to apply to every vesicle preparation within a given laboratory, assisting researchers as a routine quality control step. Also, the approach may aid in comparing/standardising vesicle purity across diverse studies, and may be of particular importance in evaluating vesicular biomarkers. We herein propose some criteria to aid in the definition of pure vesicles.

Indexed as

extracellular vesiclesnano-particle trackingsample purityvesicle counting

Identifiers

PMID24009896
PMCPMC3760653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.