ArticleJournal of extracellular biology2025
Systematic Evaluation of Isolation Techniques and Freeze-Thaw Effects on Plasma Extracellular Vesicle Heterogeneity and Subpopulation Profiling.
Article in Journal of extracellular biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- DSCAML1+ extracellular vesicles revealed by single-vesicle proteomics as a novel biomarker and therapeutic target in myocardial infarction.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Article
- Extracellular Vesicles in Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: From Biomarkers to Drug Delivery Applications.Biomolecules · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are increasingly recognized as promising disease biomarkers and therapeutic carriers. However, standardizing blood-derived EV isolation remains challenging due to the heterogeneity of EV populations and variability among isolation techniques. In this study, we systematically evaluated three distinct EV isolation methods, including asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation (AF4), size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) and automated centrifugal microfluidic disc system combined with functionalized membranes (Exo-CMDS), to compare their efficiency in isolating EVs from both freshly frozen and freeze-thawed plasma samples. We utilized an integrative approach combining Proximity-dependent Barcoding Assay (PBA) for single-EV surface protein profiling, Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for bulk proteomic analysis, along with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) to assess EV yield, morphology, surface protein expression and subpopulation diversity. Our results revealed significant differences in three EV isolation methods. AF4 is particularly enriched for EV subpopulations expressing high levels of classical tetraspanins (e.g., CD81, CD9 and CD151), and single-pass membrane proteins (e.g., ITGA4 and ITAGB1). Exo-CMDS demonstrated the highest reproducibility across samples, isolating specific EV subpopulations enriched in markers like CD5. SEC provided the highest yield but co-isolated significant amounts of non-vesicular particles, including lipoproteins. The findings contribute valuable insights toward standardized and reliable EV isolation practices for research and clinical applications.
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.