ArticleAnalytical chemistry2026
Benchmarking Lysosome Enrichment Methods: A Guide for Research and Clinical Translation.
Article in Analytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lysosomes, essential organelles involved in diverse cellular processes, are increasingly recognized as central players in the pathogenesis of numerous diseases. Due to their low abundance in whole-cell extracts, enrichment strategies are required for downstream analyses such as proteomics. Despite the availability of various lysosome isolation methods, including density gradient-based separation, filter-based approaches, magnetic bead-based isolation, and subcellular fractionation, a systematic, multimodal comparison of their performance is lacking. Here, four widely used lysosome enrichment techniques are benchmarked using the THP-1 monocytic cell line as a model. Each method has been evaluated for yield, purity, membrane integrity, reproducibility, scalability, and cross-contamination, employing nanoparticle tracking analysis, electron microscopy, flow cytometry, Western blotting, and mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Data reveal substantial differences: gradient-based and bead-based methods provide the highest lysosomal enrichment and proteomic purity, whereas the subcellular fractionation approach yields greater numbers of lysosomes but with increased variability and contamination. Finally, the filter-based method enables rapid processing, but mainly nonintact lysosomes are obtained with significant cross-contamination. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting the appropriate lysosome enrichment strategy, tailored to specific research or clinical objectives. The results also emphasize the need for rigorous validation to ensure the robustness of lysosomal studies in both basic and clinical research settings.
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.