ArticleOral diseases2025
Salivary Extracellular Vesicles Separation: Analysis of Ultracentrifugation-Based Protocols.
Article in Oral diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regucalcin in the Tumor Microenvironment: From Intracellular Tumor Suppression to Putative Extracellular Signaling.Cancers · 2026Review
- Salivary Extracellular Vesicles: Paradigm Shift in Liquid Biopsy Diagnostics.Journal of extracellular biology · 2026Review
- Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation methods reveals method-dependent protein and miRNA profiles in saliva.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe clinical potential of extracellular vesicles (EVs) is widely acknowledged, yet the standardization and reproducibility of its separation remain challenging. This study compares three protocols: ultracentrifugation (UC), UC with purification step (UC + PS), and a combined protocol using polymer-based precipitation and UC (PBP + UC).
methodsSalivary samples were collected from healthy donors. EVs were separated (UC, UC + PS, and PBP + UC) and characterized using transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticle tracking analysis, EV purity, RNA concentration, and Western blotting. miRNA expression was evaluated by quantitative RT-PCR. Statistical analyses comparing groups were performed using ANOVA.
resultsAll methods successfully separated CD9+ and CD63+ EVs from saliva. The UC + PS and PBP + UC protocols yielded the highest concentrations of EVs, enriched in < 200 nm vesicles. EV purity and RNA recovery were comparable among all methods. Expression of miR-16, miR-27a, and miR-99a was successfully detected using all methods.
conclusionsThe UC + PS and PBP + UC protocols demonstrate comparable efficiency in separating salivary EVs. However, the combined PBP + UC protocol, with its simplified processing capability, offers a significant advantage, particularly in the initial phase of EV separation. This finding suggests its potential application in clinical settings where time-sensitive simple processing is critical. Further validation is needed to confirm its effectiveness for transcriptomic and proteomic analyses.
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.