Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32722497›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2020

Mass-Spectrometry Based Proteome Comparison of Extracellular Vesicle Isolation Methods: Comparison of ME-kit, Size-Exclusion Chromatography, and High-Speed Centrifugation.

Anders Askeland, Anne Borup, Ole Østergaard, Jesper V Olsen, Sigrid M Lund, Gunna Christiansen, Søren R Kristensen, Niels H H Heegaard, Shona Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anders AskelandDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2996-129X
Anne BorupDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
Ole ØstergaardDepartment of Autoimmunology and Biomarkers, Statens Serum Institut, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jesper V OlsenNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sigrid M LundDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
Gunna ChristiansenDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark.
Søren R KristensenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
Niels H H HeegaardDepartment of Autoimmunology and Biomarkers, Statens Serum Institut, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Shona PedersenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aalborg University Hospital, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University Hospital · DKStatens Serum Institut · DKAarhus University · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are small membrane-enclosed particles released by cells under various conditions specific to cells' biological states. Hence, mass-spectrometry (MS) based proteome analysis of EVs in plasma has gained much attention as a method to discover novel protein biomarkers. MS analysis of EVs in plasma is challenging and EV isolation is usually necessary. Therefore, we compared differences in abundance, subtypes, and contamination for EVs isolated by high-speed centrifugation, size exclusion chromatography (SEC), and peptide-affinity precipitation (PAP/ME kit) for subsequent MS-based proteome analysis. Successful EV isolation was evaluated by nanoparticle-tracking analysis, immunoblotting, and transmission electron microscopy, while EV abundance, EV subtypes, and contamination was evaluated by label-free tandem MS. High-speed centrifugation and SEC isolates showed high EV abundance at the expense of contamination by non-EV proteins and lipoproteins, respectively. These two methods also resulted in EVs of a similar type, however, with smaller EVs in SEC isolates. PAP isolates had a relatively low EV abundance and high contamination. We consider high-speed centrifugation and SEC suitable as EV isolation for MS biomarker studies, where the choice between the two should depend on the scientific questions and whether the focus is on larger or smaller EVs or a combination of both.

Indexed as

EV isolationExtracellular vesicleshigh-speed centrifugationhuman plasmamass spectrometryME kitpeptide affinityproteomeproteomicssize exclusion chromatography

Identifiers

PMID32722497
PMCPMC7459681
OpenAlexW3045057048

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.