ArticleScientific reports2025
Glycoproteomic profiling of serum-derived small extracellular vesicles enriched via ultracentrifugation and affinity-based techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineered extracellular vesicles for combinatorial cancer therapy and imaging.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Review
- State-of-the-Art Applications of Field-Effect Transistor Biosensors in Exosome Detection: A Comprehensive Review.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Glycosylation of Extracellular Vesicles: Analytical and Translational Insights into Biomarker Discovery and Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Urinary Extracellular Vesicles for High-Precision Bladder Cancer Subtyping and Prognosis.Journal of extracellular biology · 2026Article
- Exosomes in ocular graft-versus-host disease: an overview.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Current Applications and Future Challenges of Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Extracellular Vesicles in Tissue Engineering: A Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of nanomedicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are gaining recognition as potential biomarkers for diseases, including cancer, due to their involvement in key pathophysiological processes. However, the glycosylation of EVs and the specific roles of their glycans remain poorly understood. While several methods exist for isolating sEVs from complex biological samples, achieving sufficient purity and quantity for mass spectrometry-based glycoproteomic analysis remains a significant challenge. In this study, we compared two commonly used isolation methods, ultracentrifugation (UC) and immunoaffinity capture (MagCapture kit), across different starting volumes of human serum (200 µL and 500 µL) to evaluate their performance for downstream glycoproteomic analysis. While prior studies have examined protein content across isolation methods, our work uniquely investigates how isolation technique and sample volume affect glycoproteomic yield and quality. We show that UC, particularly at higher sample volumes, enables deeper glycoproteomic coverage, whereas MagCapture is advantageous when serum availability is limited. Notably, we report for the first time site-specific glycan microheterogeneity on sEV glycoproteins derived from human serum, including multiple glycoforms at the same glycosylation site. These findings highlight the complexity and biological relevance of glycosylation in sEV proteins and offer practical guidance for optimizing isolation protocols based on specific omics 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.