ArticleJournal of extracellular biology2026
Comparative Assessment of Methods for Isolation and Imaging of Extracellular Vesicles.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) from defined cell sources are emerging as potential vehicles with therapeutic efficacy. The EV and non-EV secretome of individual cell populations may also be used as a measure of cell identity or state. EV attributes and composition may therefore be useful in defining the "fit-for-purpose" quality of cell populations for drug testing, biological models, and cell therapy products. As such, methods for cost-effective isolation and rigorous characterization of EVs are needed. This work aims to evaluate current methods and establish effective and potentially improved techniques to address these needs. First, ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration, and precipitation methods were evaluated as means for EV isolation from culture-expanded human mesenchymal stromal cell (hMSC) populations. Second, traditional formvar and updated lacey carbon transmission electron microscopy (TEM) grid preparations were compared. Third, electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) was evaluated for EV elemental content characterization. Fourth, the efficacy of dynamic light scattering (DLS) was evaluated as a tool for characterizing variation in EV size distribution between hMSC populations. Finally, DLS measurements were compared to direct TEM size measurements using EV populations isolated from 28 culture-expanded hMSC populations derived from 5 human donors. Ultracentrifugation was most effective in providing higher EV purity and yield per visual TEM analysis. Lacey carbon TEM grids provided the most effective imaging for visual characterization of EV morphology and enabled durable archiving of samples for discontinuous assessment. EELS identified phosphorus in the lipid bilayer but was ineffective at identifying sulfur (protein) and nitrogen (protein, RNA, DNA) contents of EVs. DLS was generally consistent in characterizing EV population size distributions, but discrepancies and limitations were identified based on direct comparative TEM observation. This study demonstrated that ultracentrifugation, DLS size characterization, and confirmation with lacey carbon TEM grid preparation provided high quality samples and effective assessment of EV size distribution and morphology.
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.