Back

Recalibrating Nanoparticle Protein Corona Analysis for Accurate Biological Identity and Soluble Plasma Proteome Profiling

Ghaffari, B.; Grumelot, S.; Sadeghi, S. A.; Alpaydin, A.; Hilsen, K.; Shango, B.; Ritz, D.; Schmidt, A.; Vali, H.; Sun, L.; Saei, A. A.; Borhan, B.; Mahmoudi, M.

2026-02-20 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.02.19.706828 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate characterization of the nanoparticle (NP) protein corona is essential for predicting biological fate, safety, and therapeutic efficacy, and for enabling robust biomarker discovery. Standard isolation techniques, most commonly centrifugation and magnetic separation, are widely used, yet they rarely account for co-isolating endogenous biological NPs such as extracellular vesicles (EVs). This oversight can distort the apparent "biological identity" of the NP. Here, we quantitatively demonstrate the magnitude and impact of EVs on the perceived protein corona composition. We incubated highly monodisperse polystyrene NPs (50-1000 nm) and superparamagnetic beads in either standard human plasma or plasma depleted of EVs by immunoaffinity capture targeting 37 EV surface epitopes. Mass spectrometry revealed that EV depletion reduced the number of proteins identified on polystyrene NPs by 60-75% and on magnetic beads by 45-50%. Importantly, EV depletion also altered the apparent abundance hierarchy; it restored the expected relative abundance and rank of major plasma proteins such as albumin and shifted the top-ranked proteins from intracellular cytoskeletal component, consistent with EV carryover, to genuine soluble plasma adsorbates (e.g., apolipoproteins, complement factors). These results highlight that standard corona workflows can inadvertently co-isolate a vast array of EV-associated proteins, yielding inaccurate proteomic profiles. Discriminating genuine corona proteins and EV-associated contaminants is critical for advancing nanomedicine, ensuring predictive safety and efficacy profiles, and enhancing the precision of NP-based biomarker discovery.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
ACS Nano
99 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.2%
2
Nano Letters
63 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
4
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.6%
5
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.4%
6
Advanced Materials
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
7
ACS Applied Bio Materials
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
9
Nanoscale
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
10
Small
70 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
11
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
Biosensors and Bioelectronics
52 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
13
Advanced Functional Materials
41 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
Nature Nanotechnology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
15
Advanced Healthcare Materials
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Journal of Nanobiotechnology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
17
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
18
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.7%
20
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
22
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
Bioactive Materials
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
24
The Analyst
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
25
Nanoscale Advances
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
26
Journal of Extracellular Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%
27
Langmuir
31 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%