Back

Establishment and application of a vesicle extraction method for clinical strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Henriquez, T.; Santoro, F.; Medaglini, D.; Pallecchi, L.; Paccagnini, E.; Gentile, M.; Lupetti, P.; Falciani, C.

2025-11-17 microbiology
10.1101/2025.11.17.688223 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a versatile pathogen capable of causing illnesses that range from mild infections to life-threatening conditions. Its virulence is driven by a wide array of factors, among which extracellular vesicles (EVs) have gained recognition as important contributors to its pathogenicity. Despite this, the full scope of their roles remains unclear. A major barrier to EV characterization is the difficulty of vesicle isolation--procedures are often lengthy, yield is low, and specialized equipment is required. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of a rapid vesicle extraction method from clinical strains of P. aeruginosa. To that end, we first selected and characterized six phenotypically diverse clinical strains of P. aeruginosa (two reference strains and 4 clinical isolates, including one strain from a cystic fibrosis patient) and used them to evaluate the vesicle extraction method. The results obtained through SDS-PAGE analysis, western blot, protein quantification, and TEM indicated the presence of vesicles in all samples; however, it was also possible to observe a large number of contaminants in some of them (mainly LS07 and Z37). Subsequent treatment with enzymes (DNase and/or alginate lyase) allowed for the elimination of the contaminants as observed by electron microscopy. Our results suggest that the method is suited for the vesicle extraction of clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa. The phenotypic complexity of these strains presents challenges that current rapid purification methods are ill-equipped to handle, highlighting the need for improved or alternative approaches.

Published in Microbiology Spectrum (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.