ArticleCell & bioscience2021
Comparative evaluation of methods for isolating small extracellular vesicles derived from pancreatic cancer cells.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- State-of-the-Art Applications of Field-Effect Transistor Biosensors in Exosome Detection: A Comprehensive Review.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Isolation of small extracellular vesicles by interacting with inorganic surface.Regenerative therapy · 2026Article
- Review
- Prediction of COVID-19 disease progression by multiparametric analysis of circulating extracellular vesicles with flow cytometry.Journal of virology · 2025Article
- Review
- Overcoming drug resistance through extracellular vesicle-based drug delivery system in cancer treatment.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2024Review
- Extracellular Vesicles: A New Star for Gene Drug Delivery.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Review
- Chromatographic purification of small extracellular vesicles using an affinity column for phospholipid membranes.Biotechnology letters · 2023Article
- Tumor-derived systems as novel biomedical tools-turning the enemy into an ally.Biomaterials research · 2023Review
- Isolation and Characterization of Cetacean Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Immunoaffinity-enriched salivary small extracellular vesicles in periodontitis.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2023Article
- Isolation and characterization of extracellular vesicles and future directions in diagnosis and therapy.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2023Review
- Extracellular vesicles: A dive into their role in the tumor microenvironment and cancer progression.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Engineering Extracellular Microenvironment for Tissue Regeneration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Multifunctional exosome-mimetics for targeted anti-glioblastoma therapy by manipulating protein corona.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2021Article
- Artificial exosomes for translational nanomedicine.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.