Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28586292›Full record

ArticleTissue engineering. Part A2017

A Systematic Evaluation of Factors Affecting Extracellular Vesicle Uptake by Breast Cancer Cells.

Devin M Stranford, Michelle E Hung, Emma S Gargus, Ramille N Shah, Joshua N Leonard

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tissue engineering. Part A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Does extracellular vesicle specificity truly exist?Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Smart exosomes enhance PDAC targeted therapy.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Extracellular Vesicles Mediate the Intercellular Exchange of Nanoparticles.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Devin M Stranford1 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois.
Michelle E Hung3 Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences Program, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois.
Emma S Gargus4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University , Chicago, Illinois.
Ramille N Shah5 Simpson Querrey Institute for BioNanotechnology, Northwestern University , Chicago, Illinois.
Joshua N Leonard1 Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University , Evanston, Illinois.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008152 · NIGMS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ARDEHALI, HOSSEIN · 1987 to 2021
$24.0M
Ex Vivo Female Reproductive Tract Integration In a 3D Microphysiologic SystemUH3TR001207 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI WOODRUFF, TERESA K · 2014 to 2016
$4.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UH3 TR001207NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometer-scale particles that are secreted by cells and mediate intercellular communication by transferring biomolecules between cells. Harnessing this mechanism for therapeutic biomolecule delivery represents a promising frontier for regenerative medicine and other clinical applications. One challenge to realizing this goal is that to date, our understanding of which factors affect EV uptake by recipient cells remains incomplete. In this study, we systematically investigated such delivery questions in the context of breast cancer cells, which are one of the most well-studied cell types with respect to EV delivery and therefore comprise a facile model system for this investigation. By displaying various targeting peptides on the EV surface, we observed that although displaying GE11 on EVs modestly increased uptake by MCF-7 cells, neuropeptide Y (NPY) display had no effect on uptake by the same cells. In contrast, neurotensin (NTS) and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) display reduced EV uptake by MDA-MB-231 cells. Interestingly, EV uptake rate did not depend on the source of the EVs; breast cancer cells demonstrated no increase in uptake on administration of breast cancer-derived EVs in comparison to HEK293FT-derived EVs. Moreover, EV uptake was greatly enhanced by delivery in the presence of polybrene and spinoculation, suggesting that maximal EV uptake rates are much greater than those observed under basal conditions in cell culture. By investigating how the cell's environment might provide cues that impact EV uptake, we also observed that culturing cells on soft matrices significantly enhanced EV uptake, compared to culturing on stiff tissue culture polystyrene. Each of these observations provides insights into the factors impacting EV uptake by breast cancer cells, while also providing a basis of comparison for systematically evaluating and perhaps enhancing EV uptake by various cell types.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorCell ProliferationExtracellular VesiclesFemaleHEK293 CellsHexadimethrine BromideHumansPeptide LibraryReceptors, Cell SurfaceUp-RegulationHexadimethrine BromidePeptide LibraryReceptors, Cell Surfacebreast cancerEVsexosomesextracellular vesicles

Identifiers

PMID28586292
PMCPMC5689128
OpenAlexW2622282932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.