Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30260987›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Efficient extracellular vesicle isolation by combining cell media modifications, ultrafiltration, and size-exclusion chromatography.

Eduarda M Guerreiro, Beate Vestad, Lilly Alice Steffensen, Hans Christian D Aass, Muhammad Saeed, Reidun Øvstebø, Daniela Elena Costea, Hilde Kanli Galtung, Tine M Søland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed
–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

82 citing papers in PubMed.

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

22 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.

Eduarda M GuerreiroInstitute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Beate VestadBlood Cell Research Group, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Lilly Alice SteffensenBlood Cell Research Group, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Hans Christian D AassBlood Cell Research Group, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Muhammad SaeedInstitute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Reidun ØvstebøBlood Cell Research Group, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway.
Daniela Elena CosteaCentre for Cancer Biomarkers CCBio and Gade Laboratory for Pathology, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Hilde Kanli GaltungInstitute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Tine M SølandInstitute of Oral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a heterogeneous population of biological particles released by cells. They represent an attractive source of potential biomarkers for early detection of diseases such as cancer. However, it is critical that sufficient amounts of EVs can be isolated and purified in a robust and reproducible manner. Several isolation methods that seem to produce distinct populations of vesicles exist, making data comparability difficult. While some methods induce cellular stress that may affect both the quantity and function of the EVs produced, others involve expensive reagents or equipment unavailable for many laboratories. Thus, there is a need for a standardized, feasible and cost-effective method for isolation of EVs from cell culture supernatants. Here we present the most common obstacles in the production and isolation of small EVs, and we suggest a combination of relatively simple strategies to avoid these. Three distinct cell lines were used (human oral squamous cell carcinoma (PE/CA-PJ49/E10)), pancreatic adenocarcinoma (BxPC3), and a human melanoma brain metastasis (H3). The addition of 1% exosome-depleted FBS to Advanced culture media enabled for reduced presence of contaminating bovine EVs while still ensuring an acceptable cell proliferation and low cellular stress. Cells were gradually adapted to these new media. Furthermore, using the Integra CELLine AD1000 culture flask we increased the number of cells and thereby EVs in 3D-culture. A combination of ultrafiltration with different molecular weight cut-offs and size-exclusion chromatography was further used for the isolation of a heterogeneous population of small EVs with low protein contamination. The EVs were characterized by nanoparticle tracking analysis, immunoaffinity capture, flow cytometry, Western blot and transmission electron microscopy. We successfully isolated a significant amount of small EVs compatible with exosomes from three distinct cell lines in order to demonstrate reproducibility with cell lines of different origin. The EVs were characterized as CD9 positive with a size between 60-140 nm. We conclude that this new combination of methods is a robust and improved strategy for the isolation of EVs, and in particular small EVs compatible with exosomes, from cell culture media without the use of specialized equipment such as an ultracentrifuge.

Indexed as

Cell Culture TechniquesCell FractionationCell Line, TumorCell TrackingChromatography, GelCulture MediaExtracellular VesiclesHumansNeoplasmsUltrafiltrationCulture Media

Identifiers

PMID30260987
PMCPMC6160036

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.