ArticleJournal of extracellular biology2026
Method Matters: A Proteomics-Informed Framework for Selecting Extracellular Vesicle Isolation Methods for Plasma.
Article in Journal of extracellular biology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) hold significant promise as biomarkers, but their clinical application is constrained by variability in pre-analytical handling and isolation. EV isolation methods directly shape which plasma-derived EV-containing preparations are captured, yet systematic method comparisons across multiple analytical dimensions are limited. We comprehensively evaluated eleven EV isolation methods in pooled platelet-poor plasma (5 donors; 6 technical replicates/method). We further evaluated selected methods using five individual donors. EVs were quantified by NanoFCM, profiled for tetraspanins (CD9, CD63, CD81) via MSD assays, and further characterized by LC-MS/MS proteomics. We show that different EV isolation methods for plasma produce different EV containing preparation. EV isolation methods broadened proteome coverage in plasma but showed divergent performance. While all methods captured EVs in the 50-150 nm range, centrifugation and ultracentrifugation identified the broadest proteomes (up to 1093 proteins) driven by higher plasma protein carryover. Conversely, ExoEasy and qEV 70 isolated larger EVs and achieved stronger depletion of abundant plasma proteins but showed lower proteome coverage. A total of 117 proteins were detected across all isolation methods. Pre-clearing of samples removed contaminants but at the cost of protein identifications. We demonstrate that method selection must align with the specific analytical goal: centrifugation for comprehensive proteome profiling, affinity/size-exclusion methods for contaminant-sensitive assays, and precipitation for high-throughput applications. This systematic characterization provides an evidence-based framework and look-up resource for matching isolation strategies to downstream applications and research questions.
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.