Cargando…

Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications

While extracellular vesicles (EVs) continue to gain interest for therapeutic applications, their clinical translation is limited by a lack of optimal isolation methods. We sought to determine how universally applied isolation methods impact EV purity and yield. EVs were isolated by ultracentrifugati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Williams, Soraya, Fernandez-Rhodes, Maria, Law, Alice, Peacock, Ben, Lewis, Mark P., Davies, Owen G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10214056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37251735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20417314231174609
_version_ 1785047756033753088
author Williams, Soraya
Fernandez-Rhodes, Maria
Law, Alice
Peacock, Ben
Lewis, Mark P.
Davies, Owen G.
author_facet Williams, Soraya
Fernandez-Rhodes, Maria
Law, Alice
Peacock, Ben
Lewis, Mark P.
Davies, Owen G.
author_sort Williams, Soraya
collection PubMed
description While extracellular vesicles (EVs) continue to gain interest for therapeutic applications, their clinical translation is limited by a lack of optimal isolation methods. We sought to determine how universally applied isolation methods impact EV purity and yield. EVs were isolated by ultracentrifugation (UC), polyethylene glycol precipitation, Total Exosome Isolation Reagent, an aqueous two-phase system with and without repeat washes or size exclusion chromatography (SEC). EV-like particles could be detected for all isolation methods but varied in their purity and relative expression of surface markers (Alix, Annexin A2, CD9, CD63 and CD81). Assessments of sample purity were dependent on the specificity of characterisation method applied, with total particle counts and particle to protein (PtP) ratios often not aligning with quantitative measures of tetraspanin surface markers obtained using high-resolution nano-flow cytometry. While SEC resulted in the isolation of fewer particles with a relatively low PtP ratio (1.12 × 10(7) ± 1.43 × 10(6) vs highest recorded; ATPS/R 2.01 × 10(8) ± 1.15 × 10(9), p ⩽ 0.05), EVs isolated using this method displayed a comparatively high level of tetraspanin positivity (e.g. ExoELISA CD63⁺ particles; 1.36 × 10(11) ± 1.18 × 10(10) vs ATPS/R 2.58 × 10(10) ± 1.92 × 10(9), p ⩽ 0.001). Results originating from an accompanying survey designed to evaluate pragmatic considerations surrounding method implementation (e.g. scalability and cost) identified that SEC and UC were favoured for overall efficiency. However, reservations were highlighted in the scalability of these methods, which could potentially hinder downstream therapeutic applications. In conclusion, variations in sample purity and yield were evident between isolation methods, while standard non-specific assessments of sample purity did not align with advanced quantitative high-resolution analysis of EV surface markers. Reproducible and specific assessments of EV purity will be critical for informing therapeutic studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10214056
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102140562023-05-27 Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications Williams, Soraya Fernandez-Rhodes, Maria Law, Alice Peacock, Ben Lewis, Mark P. Davies, Owen G. J Tissue Eng Nanotechnology in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine - Original Article While extracellular vesicles (EVs) continue to gain interest for therapeutic applications, their clinical translation is limited by a lack of optimal isolation methods. We sought to determine how universally applied isolation methods impact EV purity and yield. EVs were isolated by ultracentrifugation (UC), polyethylene glycol precipitation, Total Exosome Isolation Reagent, an aqueous two-phase system with and without repeat washes or size exclusion chromatography (SEC). EV-like particles could be detected for all isolation methods but varied in their purity and relative expression of surface markers (Alix, Annexin A2, CD9, CD63 and CD81). Assessments of sample purity were dependent on the specificity of characterisation method applied, with total particle counts and particle to protein (PtP) ratios often not aligning with quantitative measures of tetraspanin surface markers obtained using high-resolution nano-flow cytometry. While SEC resulted in the isolation of fewer particles with a relatively low PtP ratio (1.12 × 10(7) ± 1.43 × 10(6) vs highest recorded; ATPS/R 2.01 × 10(8) ± 1.15 × 10(9), p ⩽ 0.05), EVs isolated using this method displayed a comparatively high level of tetraspanin positivity (e.g. ExoELISA CD63⁺ particles; 1.36 × 10(11) ± 1.18 × 10(10) vs ATPS/R 2.58 × 10(10) ± 1.92 × 10(9), p ⩽ 0.001). Results originating from an accompanying survey designed to evaluate pragmatic considerations surrounding method implementation (e.g. scalability and cost) identified that SEC and UC were favoured for overall efficiency. However, reservations were highlighted in the scalability of these methods, which could potentially hinder downstream therapeutic applications. In conclusion, variations in sample purity and yield were evident between isolation methods, while standard non-specific assessments of sample purity did not align with advanced quantitative high-resolution analysis of EV surface markers. Reproducible and specific assessments of EV purity will be critical for informing therapeutic studies. SAGE Publications 2023-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10214056/ /pubmed/37251735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20417314231174609 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Nanotechnology in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine - Original Article
Williams, Soraya
Fernandez-Rhodes, Maria
Law, Alice
Peacock, Ben
Lewis, Mark P.
Davies, Owen G.
Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
title Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
title_full Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
title_fullStr Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
title_short Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
title_sort comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation processes for therapeutic applications
topic Nanotechnology in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine - Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10214056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37251735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20417314231174609
work_keys_str_mv AT williamssoraya comparisonofextracellularvesicleisolationprocessesfortherapeuticapplications
AT fernandezrhodesmaria comparisonofextracellularvesicleisolationprocessesfortherapeuticapplications
AT lawalice comparisonofextracellularvesicleisolationprocessesfortherapeuticapplications
AT peacockben comparisonofextracellularvesicleisolationprocessesfortherapeuticapplications
AT lewismarkp comparisonofextracellularvesicleisolationprocessesfortherapeuticapplications
AT daviesoweng comparisonofextracellularvesicleisolationprocessesfortherapeuticapplications