ArticleBMC cancer2025
Different plasma exosome isolation methods generated distinct microRNA and protein profiles in healthy controls and patients with advanced prostate and lung cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exosome-Mediated Systemic Signaling: Mechanisms, Disease Integration, and Translational Potential.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundExosomes, extracellular vesicles pivotal in cancer intercellular communication, encapsulate biomolecules with potential as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Efficient isolation is essential for accurate molecular profiling. This study compares three exosome isolation methods-size exclusion chromatography (SEC), lectin-binding, and TIM4-binding-for proteomic and miRNA analysis of plasma exosomes in cancer.
methodsPlasma exosomes from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, N = 22), castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, N = 7), and healthy controls (N = 15) were analyzed. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry profiled exosomal proteins, and small RNA sequencing identified miRNAs.
resultsSEC, lectin-binding, and TIM4-binding methods identified 122, 153, and 87 proteins, and 335, 89, and 181 miRNAs, respectively. SEC detected the most unique miRNAs (183), while lectin-binding excelled in unique protein detection (56). In CRPC, 69 proteins and 21 miRNAs differed significantly (p < 0.05) from controls, with SEC identifying 11 proteins and 6 miRNAs, lectin-binding detecting 40 proteins and 1 miRNA, and TIM4-binding revealing 18 proteins and 14 miRNAs. In NSCLC, 33 proteins and 15 miRNAs showed differential expression (p < 0.05), with SEC detecting 14 proteins and 3 miRNAs, lectin-binding identifying 2 proteins, and TIM4-binding uncovering 17 proteins and 12 miRNAs.
conclusionsThe choice of exosome isolation method profoundly influences molecular profiling, with SEC optimizing miRNA detection, lectin-binding enhancing protein capture, and TIM4-binding enriching cancer-specific miRNAs. These findings underscore the need for tailored isolation strategies to unlock exosomes' potential as precise, multi-omic biomarkers for cancer diagnosis and monitoring.
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.