Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28025988›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular medicine2016

Charge-based precipitation of extracellular vesicles.

Maria Chiara Deregibus, Federico Figliolini, Sergio D'Antico, Paola Maria Manzini, Chiara Pasquino, Michela De Lena, Ciro Tetta, Maria Felice Brizzi, Giovanni Camussi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 175 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
175citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

175 citing papers in PubMed, 287 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

115 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maria Chiara DeregibusDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Federico Figliolini2i3T - Scarl. - Molecular Biotechnology Center (MBC), University of Turin, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Sergio D'AnticoBlood Bank, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Paola Maria ManziniBlood Bank, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Chiara Pasquino2i3T - Scarl. - Molecular Biotechnology Center (MBC), University of Turin, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Michela De Lena2i3T - Scarl. - Molecular Biotechnology Center (MBC), University of Turin, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Ciro TettaUnicyte AG, 6370 Oberdorf, Switzerland.
Maria Felice BrizziDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
Giovanni CamussiDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, I-10126 Turin, Italy.
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vesicular-mediated communication between cells appears critical in many biological processes. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) released from healthy and diseased cells are involved in a network of exchange of biologically active molecules. Since EVs present in biological fluids carry the signature of the cell of origin, they are potential biomarkers for ongoing physiological or pathological processes. Despite the knowledge on EV biology accrued in recent years, techniques of EV purification remain a challenge and all the described methods have some advantages and disadvantages. In the present study, we described a method based on charge precipitation of EVs from biological fluids and from cell supernatants in comparison with the differential ultracentrifugation, which is considered the gold standard for EV purification. The analysis of ζ‑potential revealed that EVs have a negative charge that allows the interaction with a positively charged molecule, such as protamine. Protamine was shown to induce EV precipitation from serum and saliva and from cell culture media without the need for ultracentrifugation. EV resuspension was facilitated when protamine (P) precipitation was performed in the presence of PEG 35,000 Da (P/PEG precipitation). The recovery of precipitated EVs evaluated by NanoSight analysis was more efficient than that obtained by ultracentrifugation. By electron microscopy the size of EVs was similar after both methods were used, and the expression of CD63, CD9 and CD81 exosomal markers in the P/PEG‑precipitated EVs indicated an enrichment in exosomes. The RNA recovery of P/PEG‑precipitated EVs was similar to that of EVs isolated by ultracentrifugation. In addition, P/PEG‑precipitated EVs retained the biological activity in vitro as observed by the induction of wound closure by keratinocytes and of proliferation of tubular epithelial cells. In conclusion, charge-based precipitation of EVs has the merit of simplicity and avoids the requirement of expensive equipments and may be used for the efficient isolation of EVs from small biological samples.

Indexed as

Chemical PrecipitationStatic ElectricityAdultApolipoproteinsExtracellular VesiclesHumansLiverNanoparticlesRNASalivaSerumStem CellsUltracentrifugationApolipoproteinsRNA

Identifiers

PMID28025988
PMCPMC5065305
OpenAlexW2525818101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.