ReviewNeuromolecular medicine2026
Markers and Enrichment Strategies for Brain-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: Current Evidence, Limitations and Future Directions.
Review in Neuromolecular medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain-derived extracellular vesicles (bdEVs) have gained attention as key mediators of central nervous system communication and as minimally invasive biomarkers for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders due to their presence in cerebrospinal fluid and peripheral biofluids. Despite this promise, their translational application is constrained by difficulties in selective enrichment and reliable assignment of cellular origin. This review summarizes the progression of bdEV isolation methodologies, from bulk physicochemical approaches to immunoaffinity-based, combinatorial, and single-vesicle-resolved strategies, with an emphasis on marker specificity. Using L1CAM as a representative example, we highlight how peripheral expression, extensive proteolytic cleavage, and dominance of soluble forms undermine its utility as a definitive neuronal EV marker. We further evaluate alternative surface and cargo markers proposed for neuron, astrocyte, microglial, and oligodendrocyte-derived bdEVs, identifying candidates such as ATP1A3, AMPA receptor subunits, GLAST, and AQP4 as more biologically grounded, while noting their limitations. Overall, current evidence indicates that no single marker can reliably define bdEV populations and that marker performance is strongly context dependent. Advancing the field will therefore require brain-restricted marker discovery, multiplexed and orthogonal enrichment strategies, single-vesicle validation, and systematic benchmarking against neural reference datasets to establish bdEVs as robust biomarkers and mechanistic reporters in neurobiology and neurological disease research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828603What 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.