ArticleJournal of extracellular biology2024
Comparison of cervicovaginal fluid extracellular vesicles isolated from paired cervical brushes and vaginal swabs.
Article in Journal of extracellular biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of extracellular vesicles in endometriosis: A systematic review of pathogenesis, diagnostic biomarkers, and therapeutic potential.Molecular biology reports · 2026Pooled it
- Sex differences in urinary extracellular vesicles originating from the genitourinary system in health and disease.American journal of physiology. Renal physiology · 2026Review
- Bacterial Extracellular Vesicles: New Hype or Hope to Explain Reproductive Host-Microbiota Interactions.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2026Review
- Review
- Comparison of cervicovaginal fluid extracellular vesicles isolated from paired cervical brushes and vaginal swabs.Journal of extracellular biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection to2025
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition, with a long diagnostic delay. Surgery is required to confirm a diagnosis, highlighting the need for a non-invasive biomarker. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) may have a role in endometriosis pathogenesis, yet there is limited EV biomarker literature available. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of isolating cervico-vaginal fluid EVs sampled using cervical brushes and vaginal swabs and to compare these methods. After providing informed consent, patients undergoing surgery for suspected endometriosis had cervical brush and vaginal swab samples collected under general anaesthetic. Isolated EVs were characterised through negative stain transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Western blotting (TSG101, CD63, Calnexin, ApoB, Albumin), tunable resistive pulse sensing (TRPS), microBCA assays and RT-qPCR of miRNAs. PCR was performed on samples prior to EV isolation to assess bacteria present in samples. Cervical brush and vaginal swab EVs were intact vesicles with limited co-isolated contaminants. Cervical brushes had higher concentrations of particles compared to match vaginal swabs, although both samples had low concentrations. Protein and miRNA yield were similar between matched samples. PCR demonstrated only a small amount DNA within samples was bacterial (>0.5%). Cervico-vaginal fluids EVs were successfully isolated from cervical brushes and vaginal swabs, demonstrating a new method of sampling reproductive EVs. EV yield from both sample types was low. Similar protein and miRNA levels suggest either sampling method may be suitable for biomarker studies.
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.