Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33857352›Full record

ReviewProteomics2021

Understanding extracellular vesicle and nanoparticle heterogeneity: Novel methods and considerations.

William Phillips, Eduard Willms, Andrew F Hill

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Proteomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

William PhillipsDepartment of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Eduard WillmsDepartment of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew F HillDepartment of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a heterogeneous population of membrane-enclosed nanoparticles released by cells. They play a role in intercellular communication and are involved in numerous physiological and pathological processes. Cells release subpopulations of EVs with distinct composition and inherent biological function which overlap in size. Current size-based isolation methods are, therefore, not optimal to discriminate between functional EV subpopulations. In addition, EVs overlap in size with several other biological nanoparticles, such as lipoproteins and viruses. Proteomic analysis has allowed for more detailed study of EV composition, and EV isolation approaches based on this could provide a promising alternative for purification based on size. Elucidating EV heterogeneity and the characteristics and role of EV subpopulations will advance our understanding of EV biology and the role of EVs in health and disease. Here, we discuss current knowledge of EV composition, EV heterogeneity and advances in affinity based EV isolation tools.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesNanoparticlesProteomicsexosomesextracellular vesiclesmicrovesiclesnanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID33857352
PMCPMC8365743

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.