Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30926864›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Comparative analysis of exosome isolation methods using culture supernatant for optimum yield, purity and downstream applications.

Girijesh Kumar Patel, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Haseeb Zubair, Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, Moh'd Khushman, Seema Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 359 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
359citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Comparison of Methods for the Isolation of Salivary Extracellular Vesicles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

299 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

7 authors.

Girijesh Kumar PatelDepartment of Oncologic Sciences, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Mohammad Aslam KhanDepartment of Oncologic Sciences, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Haseeb ZubairDepartment of Oncologic Sciences, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Sanjeev Kumar SrivastavaDepartment of Oncologic Sciences, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Moh'd KhushmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Seema SinghDepartment of Oncologic Sciences, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Ajay Pratap SinghDepartment of Oncologic Sciences, Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA. asingh@health.southalabama.edu.

Funding

Targeting tumor-stromal interaction for pancreatic cancer therapyR01CA175772 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA · PI SINGH, AJAY PRATAP · 2014 to 2018
$1.9M
Molecular determinant of racial disparity in prostate cancerU01CA185490 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA · PI SINGH, AJAY PRATAP · 2014 to 2018
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA175772NCI NIH HHS U01 CA185490
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exosomes have received significant attention for their role in pathobiological processes and are being explored as a tool for disease diagnosis and management. Consequently, various isolation methods based on different principles have been developed for exosome isolation. Here we compared the efficacy of four kits from Invitrogen, 101Bio, Wako and iZON along with conventional ultracentrifugation-based method for exosome yield, purity and quality. Cell culture supernatant was used as an abundant source of exosomes, and exosome quantity, size-distribution, zeta-potential, marker-expression and RNA/protein quality were determined. The Invitrogen kit gave the highest yield but the preparation showed broader size-distribution likely due to microvesicle co-precipitation and had the least dispersion stability. Other preparations showed <150 nm size range and good stability. Preparation from iZON column; however, had a broader size-distribution in the lower size range suggestive of some impurities of non-vesicular aggregates. RNA quality from all preparations was comparable; however, proteins from Invitrogen method-based exosomal preparation showed polyethylene glycol (PEG) contamination in mass spectrometry. Chemical impurities from the precipitant could also be the cause of toxicity of Invitrogen method-based exosomal preparation in biological growth measurement assay. Together, these findings should serve as a guide to choose and further optimize exosome isolation methods for their desired downstream applications.

Indexed as

Chemical FractionationCulture Media, ConditionedExosomesHumansMass SpectrometryParticle SizeWorkflowCulture Media, Conditioned

Identifiers

PMID30926864
PMCPMC6441044

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.