Back

Effect of sample preprocessing and extraction methods on the physical and molecular profiles of extracellular vesicles

Alexandre, L.; Shen, M. L.; Fernandes de Araujo, L. O.; Renault, J.; DeCorwin-Martin, P.; Martel, R.; Ng, A.; Juncker, D.

2023-07-19 bioengineering
10.1101/2023.07.17.549204 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometric lipid vesicles that shuttle cargo between cells. Their analysis could shed light on health and disease conditions, but EVs must first be preserved, extracted and often pre-concentrated. Here we firstly compare plasma preservation agents, and secondly, using both plasma and cell supernatant, four EV-extraction methods including (i) ultracen-trifugation (UC), (ii) size exclusion chromatography (SEC), (iii) centrifugal filtration (LoDF), and (iv) accousto-sorting (AcS). We benchmarked them by characterizing integrity, size-distribution, concentration, purity and the expression profiles for nine proteins of EVs, as well as overall throughput, time-to-result and cost. We found that the difference between EDTA and citrate anticoagulants vary with the extraction method. In our hands, ultracentrifugation produced a high yield of EVs with low contamination; SEC is low-cost, fast, and easy to implement, but the purity of EVs is lower; LoDF and AcS are both compatible with process automation, small volume requirement, and rapid processing times. When using plasma, the LoDF was susceptible to clogging and sample contamination, while the AcS featured high purity but a lower yield of extraction. Analysis of protein profiles suggest that extraction methods extract different sub-population of EVs. Our study highlights the strength and weakness of sample preprocessing methods, and the variability in concentration, purity, and EV expression profiles of the extracted EVs. Pre-analytical parameters such as collection or pre-processing protocols must be considered as part of the entire process in order to address EV diversity and their use as clinically actionable indicators.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Extracellular Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
2
Cytotherapy
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
3
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.5%
4
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.5%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
7
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
8
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
9
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
10
Molecular Pharmaceutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Journal of Nanobiotechnology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
Biomaterials Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
13
ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
14
Small
70 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
15
Biomaterials
78 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
16
Biotechnology and Bioengineering
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
17
Nano Letters
63 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
158 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
ACS Applied Bio Materials
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
BMC Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
21
The Analyst
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
22
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
23
Langmuir
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Advanced Biology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
28
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
29
AIDS
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
30
Small Methods
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%