Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35453535›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2022

Extracellular Vesicles from Human Cerebrospinal Fluid Are Effectively Separated by Sepharose CL-6B-Comparison of Four Gravity-Flow Size Exclusion Chromatography Methods.

Vedrana Krušić Alić, Mladenka Malenica, Maša Biberić, Siniša Zrna, Lara Valenčić, Aleksandar Šuput, Lada Kalagac Fabris, Karmen Wechtersbach, Nika Kojc, Mario Kurtjak and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. ICAM-5: A Novel Marker for Neuronally Derived Extracellular Vesicles.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Vedrana Krušić AlićDepartment of Physiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-5467-165X
Mladenka MalenicaDepartment of Medical Chemistry, Biochemistry and Clinical Chemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-9030-5339
Maša BiberićGeneral Hospital Pula, 52100 Pula, Croatia.
Siniša ZrnaGeneral Hospital Pula, 52100 Pula, Croatia.
Lara ValenčićDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Clinical Hospital Centre Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia.
Aleksandar ŠuputGeneral Hospital Pula, 52100 Pula, Croatia.
Lada Kalagac FabrisGeneral Hospital Pula, 52100 Pula, Croatia.
Karmen WechtersbachInstitute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nika KojcInstitute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-1893-4349
Mario KurtjakAdvanced Materials Department, Jožef Stefan Institute, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-2334-5920
Natalia KučićDepartment of Physiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0003-1486-4208
Kristina GrabušićDepartment of Physiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-4165-0291
Juraj Dobrila University of Pula · HRUniversity of Rijeka · HRUniversity of Ljubljana · SIJožef Stefan Institute · SIUniversity Hospital Centre Zagreb · HR

Funding

Croatian Science Foundation IP-2019-04-1511Slovenian Research Agency P3-0054University of Rijeka uniri-biomed-18-279University of Rijeka uniri-biomed-18-5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a versatile group of cell-secreted membranous nanoparticles present in body fluids. They have an exceptional diagnostic potential due to their molecular content matching the originating cells and accessibility from body fluids. However, methods for EV isolation are still in development, with size exclusion chromatography (SEC) emerging as a preferred method. Here we compared four types of SEC to isolate EVs from the CSF of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. A pool of nine CSF samples was separated by SEC columns packed with Sepharose CL-6B, Sephacryl S-400 or Superose 6PG and a ready-to-use qEV10/70 nm column. A total of 46 fractions were collected and analysed by slot-blot followed by Ponceau staining. Immunodetection was performed for albumin, EV markers CD9, CD81, and lipoprotein markers ApoE and ApoAI. The size and concentration of nanoparticles in fractions were determined by tunable resistive pulse sensing and EVs were visualised by transmission electron microscopy. We show that all four SEC techniques enabled separation of CSF into nanoparticle- and free protein-enriched fractions. Sepharose CL-6B resulted in a significantly higher number of separated EVs while lipoproteins were eluted together with free proteins. Our data indicate that Sepharose CL-6B is suitable for isolation of EVs from CSF and their separation from lipoproteins.

Indexed as

apolipoproteinsCD81 proteinCD9 proteincerebrospinal fluidextracellular vesiclessize exclusion chromatographytraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID35453535
PMCPMC9032713
OpenAlexW4220706043

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.