Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33568197›Full record

ArticleCell & bioscience2021

Comparative evaluation of methods for isolating small extracellular vesicles derived from pancreatic cancer cells.

Jie-Min Wang, Yong-Jiang Li, Jun-Yong Wu, Jia-Xin Cai, Jing Wen, Da-Xiong Xiang, Xiong-Bin Hu, Wen-Qun Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell & bioscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Extracellular Vesicles: A New Star for Gene Drug Delivery.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Immunoaffinity-enriched salivary small extracellular vesicles in periodontitis.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2023
    Article
  12. Isolation and characterization of extracellular vesicles and future directions in diagnosis and therapy.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Artificial exosomes for translational nanomedicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Jie-Min Wang *Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yong-Jiang Li *Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jun-Yong WuDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jia-Xin CaiDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jing WenDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Da-Xiong XiangDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China. xiangdaxiong@csu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6882-7862
Xiong-Bin HuDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Wen-Qun LiDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.

Funding

Hunan Provincial Technology Plan 2016TP2002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmall extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are nanosized vesicles involved in cell-to-cell communication. sEVs have been widely studied for clinical applications such as early detection of diseases and as therapeutics. Various methods for sEVs isolation are been using, but different methods may result in different qualities of sEVs and impact downstream analysis and applications. Here, we compared current isolation methods and performed a comparative analysis of sEVs from supernatant of cultured pancreatic cancer cells.

methodsUltracentrifugation, ultrafiltration and co-precipitation as concentration methods were firstly evaluated for yield, size, morphology and protein level of pellets. Then, isolate sEVs obtained by four different purification methods: size exclusion chromatography, density gradient ultracentrifugation, ultracentrifugation, and immunoaffinity capturing, were analysed and compared.

resultsFor the concentration process, ultracentrifugation method obtained high quality and high concentration of pellets. For the purification process, immunoaffinity capturing method obtained the purest sEVs with less contaminants, while density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method obtained sEVs with the smallest size. Proteomic analysis revealed distinct protein contents of purified sEVs from different methods.

conclusionsFor isolating sEVs derived from supernatant of cultured pancreatic cancer cell line, ultracentrifugation-based method is recommended for concentration of sEVs, density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method may be applied for obtaining purified sEVs with controlled size, immunoaffinity capturing may be suitable for studies requiring sEVs with high purity but may loss subtypes of sEVs without specific protein marker.

Indexed as

Extracellular vesiclesImmunoaffinity capturingIsolation methodUltracentrifugation

Identifiers

PMID33568197
PMCPMC7877077

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.