Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33477118›Full record

ReviewBiomedical materials (Bristol, England)2021

Exosome isolation using nanostructures and microfluidic devices.

Minh-Chau N Le, Z Hugh Fan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedical materials (Bristol, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Exosome: an overview on enhanced biogenesis by small molecules.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Exosomes in Ovarian Cancer: Towards Precision Oncology.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Extracellular Vesicle Preparation and Analysis: A State-of-the-Art Review.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Minh-Chau N LeInterdisciplinary Microsystems Group, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, PO Box 116250, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5932-5382
Z Hugh FanInterdisciplinary Microsystems Group, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, PO Box 116250, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1812-8016

Funding

Novel Methods of Chemo-sensitizing Low-proliferative Disseminated Tumor Cells in Triple Negative Breast CancerR01CA238387 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI TRAN, DAVID D · 2020 to 2025
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA238387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exosomes contain cargoes of proteins, lipids, micro-ribonucleic acids, and functional messenger RNAs, and they play a key role in cell-to-cell communication and hold valuable information about biological processes such as disease pathology. To harvest their potentials in disease diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutics, exosome isolation is a crucial first step in providing pure and intact samples for both research and clinical purposes. Unfortunately, conventional methods for exosome separation suffer from low purity, low capture efficiency, long processing time, large sample volume requirement, the need for dedicated equipment and trained personnel, and high cost. In the last decade, microfluidic devices, especially those that incorporate nanostructures, have emerged as superior alternatives for exosome isolation and detection. In this review, we examine microfluidic platforms, dividing them into six categories based on their capture mechanisms: passive-structure-based affinity, immunomagnetic-based affinity, filtration, acoustofluidics, electrokinetics, and optofluidics. Here, we start out exploring the research and clinical needs that translate into important performance parameters for new exosome isolation designs. Then, we briefly introduce the conventional methods and discuss how their failure to meet those performance standards sparks an intense interest in microfluidic device innovations. The essence of this review is to lead an in-depth discussion on not only the technicality of those microfluidic platforms, but also their strengths and weaknesses with regards to the performance parameters set forth. To close the conversation, we call for the inclusion of exosome confirmation and contamination evaluation as part of future device development and performance assessment process, so that collectively, efforts towards microfluidics and nanotechnology for exosome isolation and analysis may soon see the light of real-world applications.

Indexed as

Lab-On-A-Chip DevicesMicrofluidicsAcousticsAnimalsApoptosisBiocompatible MaterialsElectrochemistryExosomesHumansKineticsLimit of DetectionLipidsMiceNanostructuresNanotechnologyNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingBiocompatible MaterialsLipids

Identifiers

PMID33477118
PMCPMC8082697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.