Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32770003›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Impact of isolation methods on the biophysical heterogeneity of single extracellular vesicles.

Shivani Sharma, Michael LeClaire, James Wohlschlegel, James Gimzewski

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  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. Article
  19. Recent developments in biosensing methods for extracellular vesicle protein characterization.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2023
    Review
  20. Isolation and characterization of extracellular vesicles and future directions in diagnosis and therapy.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2023
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shivani SharmaDepartment of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90095, USA. sharmas@ucla.edu.
Michael LeClaireDepartment of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
James WohlschlegelDepartment of Biological Chemistry, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
James GimzewskiCalifornia NanoSystems Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USCalifornia NanoSystems Institute · US

Funding

UCLA SPORE in Brain CancerP50CA211015 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI David A. Nathanson · 2017 to 2026
$25.2M
Proteolytic Control of Iron Metabolism by the Ubiquitin Ligase FBXL5R01GM089778 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI WOHLSCHLEGEL, JAMES AKIRA · 2010 to 2023
$4.0M
Nanoscale Structure and Bio-Molecular Heterogeneity of "Purified" ExosomesR21CA218386 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI SHARMA, SHIVANI · 2018 to 2019
$352k
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA211015NCI NIH HHS R21 CA218386NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM089778
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have raised high expectations as a novel class of diagnostics and therapeutics. However, variabilities in EV isolation methods and the unresolved structural complexity of these biological-nanoparticles (sub-100 nm) necessitate rigorous biophysical characterization of single EVs. Here, using atomic force microscopy (AFM) in conjunction with direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM), micro-fluidic resistive pore sizing (MRPS), and multi-angle light scattering (MALS) techniques, we compared the size, structure and unique surface properties of breast cancer cell-derived small EVs (sEV) obtained using four different isolation methods. AFM and dSTORM particle size distributions showed coherent unimodal and bimodal particle size populations isolated via centrifugation and immune-affinity methods respectively. More importantly, AFM imaging revealed striking differences in sEV nanoscale morphology, surface nano-roughness, and relative abundance of non-vesicles among different isolation methods. Precipitation-based isolation method exhibited the highest particle counts, yet nanoscale imaging revealed the additional presence of aggregates and polymeric residues. Together, our findings demonstrate the significance of orthogonal label-free surface characteristics of single sEVs, not discernable via conventional particle sizing and counts alone. Quantifying key nanoscale structural characteristics of sEVs, collectively termed 'EV-nano-metrics' enhances the understanding of the complexity and heterogeneity of sEV isolates, with broad implications for EV-analyte based research and clinical use.

Indexed as

BiophysicsBreast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorExtracellular VesiclesFemaleHumansMCF-7 CellsMicroscopy, Atomic ForceParticle Size

Identifiers

PMID32770003
PMCPMC7414114
OpenAlexW3048271914

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.