Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29951064›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2018

Systematic Methodological Evaluation of a Multiplex Bead-Based Flow Cytometry Assay for Detection of Extracellular Vesicle Surface Signatures.

Oscar P B Wiklander, R Beklem Bostancioglu, Joshua A Welsh, Antje M Zickler, Florian Murke, Giulia Corso, Ulrika Felldin, Daniel W Hagey, Björn Evertsson, Xiu-Ming Liang and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

145 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

85 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

22 authors.

Oscar P B WiklanderClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
R Beklem BostanciogluClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Joshua A WelshMolecular Immunogenetics and Vaccine Research Section, Vaccine Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Antje M ZicklerClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Florian MurkeInstitute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Giulia CorsoClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ulrika FelldinClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Daniel W HageyClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Björn EvertssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Xiu-Ming LiangClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Manuela O GustafssonClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dara K MohammadClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Constanze WiekDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology & Head/Neck Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Helmut HanenbergDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology & Head/Neck Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Michel BremerInstitute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Dhanu GuptaClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mikael BjörnstedtDivision of Pathology F56, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bernd GiebelInstitute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Joel Z NordinClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jennifer C JonesMolecular Immunogenetics and Vaccine Research Section, Vaccine Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Samir El AndaloussiClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
André GörgensClinical Research Center, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Development and use of nanoFACS for analysis and sorting of nanoparticlesZIABC011502 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI JONES, JENNIFER · 2013 to 2025
$8.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) can be harvested from cell culture supernatants and from all body fluids. EVs can be conceptually classified based on their size and biogenesis as exosomes and microvesicles. Nowadays, it is however commonly accepted in the field that there is a much higher degree of heterogeneity within these two subgroups than previously thought. For instance, the surface marker profile of EVs is likely dependent on the cell source, the cell's activation status, and multiple other parameters. Within recent years, several new methods and assays to study EV heterogeneity in terms of surface markers have been described; most of them are being based on flow cytometry. Unfortunately, such methods generally require dedicated instrumentation, are time-consuming and demand extensive operator expertise for sample preparation, acquisition, and data analysis. In this study, we have systematically evaluated and explored the use of a multiplex bead-based flow cytometric assay which is compatible with most standard flow cytometers and facilitates a robust semi-quantitative detection of 37 different potential EV surface markers in one sample simultaneously. First, assay variability, sample stability over time, and dynamic range were assessed together with the limitations of this assay in terms of EV input quantity required for detection of differently abundant surface markers. Next, the potential effects of EV origin, sample preparation, and quality of the EV sample on the assay were evaluated. The findings indicate that this multiplex bead-based assay is generally suitable to detect, quantify, and compare EV surface signatures in various sample types, including unprocessed cell culture supernatants, cell culture-derived EVs isolated by different methods, and biological fluids. Furthermore, the use and limitations of this assay to assess heterogeneities in EV surface signatures was explored by combining different sets of detection antibodies in EV samples derived from different cell lines and subsets of rare cells. Taken together, this validated multiplex bead-based flow cytometric assay allows robust, sensitive, and reproducible detection of EV surface marker expression in various sample types in a semi-quantitative way and will be highly valuable for many researchers in the EV field in different experimental contexts.

Indexed as

bead-based flow cytometryexosome analysisexosomesextracellular vesicle flow cytometryextracellular vesiclesextracellular vesicle surface signatureliquid biopsymicrovesicles

Identifiers

PMID29951064
PMCPMC6008374

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.