Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41630502›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2026

Benchmarking Lysosome Enrichment Methods: A Guide for Research and Clinical Translation.

Anniek L de Jager, Sara Kassem, Louis Alesha, Brigitta A E Naber, Inge F de Laat, Bas de Mooij, Kyra van der Pan, Erik Bos, Roman I Koning, Jacques J M van Dongen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Anniek L de JagerDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Sara KassemDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Louis AleshaDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Brigitta A E NaberDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Inge F de LaatDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Bas de MooijDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Kyra van der PanDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Erik BosElectron Microscopy Facility, Department of Cell and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Roman I KoningElectron Microscopy Facility, Department of Cell and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Jacques J M van DongenDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.
Cristina TeodosioDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2097-7199
Paula DíezDepartment of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden 2333ZA, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2150-6898

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cell FractionationLysosomesBenchmarkingFlow CytometryHumansMass SpectrometryProteomicsTHP-1 Cells

Identifiers

PMID41630502
PMCPMC12921670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.