Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38436286›Full record

ArticleACS sensors2024

Effect of Sample Preprocessing and Size-Based Extraction Methods on the Physical and Molecular Profiles of Extracellular Vesicles.

Lucile Alexandre, Molly L Shen, Lorenna Oliveira Fernandes de Araujo, Johan Renault, Philippe DeCorwin-Martin, Rosalie Martel, Andy Ng, David Juncker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS sensors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Exosome-Based Therapeutics in Dermatology.Biomaterials research · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
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.

Lucile AlexandreBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9969-4337
Molly L ShenBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3383-619X
Lorenna Oliveira Fernandes de AraujoBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.
Johan RenaultBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.
Philippe DeCorwin-MartinBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8132-1102
Rosalie MartelBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0314-2584
Andy NgBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.
David JunckerBiomedical Engineering Department, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7313-1162

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometric lipid vesicles that shuttle cargo between cells. Their analysis could shed light on health and disease conditions, but EVs must first be preserved, extracted, and often preconcentrated. Here we first compare plasma preservation agents, and second, using both plasma and cell supernatant, four EV extraction methods, including (i) ultracentrifugation (UC), (ii) size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), (iii) centrifugal filtration (LoDF), and (iv) accousto-sorting (AcS). We benchmarked them by characterizing the integrity, size distribution, concentration, purity, and expression profiles for nine proteins of EVs, as well as the overall throughput, time-to-result, and cost. We found that the difference between ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and citrate anticoagulants varies with the extraction method. In our hands, ultracentrifugation produced a high yield of EVs with low contamination; SEC is low-cost, fast, and easy to implement, but the purity of EVs is lower; LoDF and AcS are both compatible with process automation, small volume requirement, and rapid processing times. When using plasma, LoDF was susceptible to clogging and sample contamination, while AcS featured high purity but a lower yield of extraction. Analysis of protein profiles suggests that the extraction methods extract different subpopulations of EVs. Our study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of sample preprocessing methods, and the variability in concentration, purity, and EV expression profiles of the extracted EVs. Preanalytical parameters such as collection or preprocessing protocols must be considered as part of the entire process in order to address EV diversity and their use as clinically actionable indicators.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesChromatography, GelProteinsUltracentrifugationProteinscharacterizationcomparisonextracellular vesiclesextractionpreanalytical parameterssubpopulation

Identifiers

PMID38436286
PMCPMC10964911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.