Cargando…

Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines

Cellular crosstalk between hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and the bone marrow (BM) niche is vital for the development and maintenance of myeloid malignancies. These compartments can communicate via bidirectional transfer of extracellular vesicles (EVs). EV trafficking in acute myeloid leukemia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lang, Jonas B., Buck, Michèle C., Rivière, Jennifer, Stambouli, Oumaima, Sachenbacher, Ken, Choudhary, Purva, Dietz, Hendrik, Giebel, Bernd, Bassermann, Florian, Oostendorp, Robert A. J., Götze, Katharina S., Hecker, Judith S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36263223
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.949261
_version_ 1784811020786597888
author Lang, Jonas B.
Buck, Michèle C.
Rivière, Jennifer
Stambouli, Oumaima
Sachenbacher, Ken
Choudhary, Purva
Dietz, Hendrik
Giebel, Bernd
Bassermann, Florian
Oostendorp, Robert A. J.
Götze, Katharina S.
Hecker, Judith S.
author_facet Lang, Jonas B.
Buck, Michèle C.
Rivière, Jennifer
Stambouli, Oumaima
Sachenbacher, Ken
Choudhary, Purva
Dietz, Hendrik
Giebel, Bernd
Bassermann, Florian
Oostendorp, Robert A. J.
Götze, Katharina S.
Hecker, Judith S.
author_sort Lang, Jonas B.
collection PubMed
description Cellular crosstalk between hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and the bone marrow (BM) niche is vital for the development and maintenance of myeloid malignancies. These compartments can communicate via bidirectional transfer of extracellular vesicles (EVs). EV trafficking in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) plays a crucial role in shaping the BM microenvironment into a leukemia-permissive niche. Although several EV isolation methods have been developed, it remains a major challenge to define the most accurate and reliable procedure. Here, we tested the efficacy and functional assay compatibility of four different EV isolation methods in leukemia-derived EVs: (1) membrane affinity-based: exoEasy Kit alone and (2) in combination with Amicon filtration; (3) precipitation: ExoQuick-TC; and (4) ultracentrifugation (UC). Western blot analysis of EV fractions showed the highest enrichment of EV marker expression (e.g., CD63, HSP70, and TSG101) by precipitation with removal of overabundant soluble proteins [e.g., bovine serum albumin (BSA)], which were not discarded using UC. Besides the presence of damaged EVs after UC, intact EVs were successfully isolated with all methods as evidenced by highly maintained spherical- and cup-shaped vesicles in transmission electron microscopy. Nanoparticle tracking analysis of EV particle size and concentration revealed significant differences in EV isolation efficacy, with exoEasy Kit providing the highest EV yield recovery. Of note, functional assays with exoEasy Kit-isolated EVs showed significant toxicity towards treated target cells [e.g., mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs)], which was abrogated when combining exoEasy Kit with Amicon filtration. Additionally, MSC treated with green fluorescent protein (GFP)-tagged exoEasy Kit-isolated EVs did not show any EV uptake, while EV isolation by precipitation demonstrated efficient EV internalization. Taken together, the choice of EV isolation procedure significantly impacts the yield and potential functionality of leukemia-derived EVs. The cheapest method (UC) resulted in contaminated and destructed EV fractions, while the isolation method with the highest EV yield (exoEasy Kit) appeared to be incompatible with functional assays. We identified two methods (precipitation-based ExoQuick-TC and membrane affinity-based exoEasy Kit combined with Amicon filtration) yielding pure and intact EVs, also suitable for application in functional assays. This study highlights the importance of selecting the right EV isolation method depending on the desired experimental design.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9574064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95740642022-10-18 Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines Lang, Jonas B. Buck, Michèle C. Rivière, Jennifer Stambouli, Oumaima Sachenbacher, Ken Choudhary, Purva Dietz, Hendrik Giebel, Bernd Bassermann, Florian Oostendorp, Robert A. J. Götze, Katharina S. Hecker, Judith S. Front Oncol Oncology Cellular crosstalk between hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and the bone marrow (BM) niche is vital for the development and maintenance of myeloid malignancies. These compartments can communicate via bidirectional transfer of extracellular vesicles (EVs). EV trafficking in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) plays a crucial role in shaping the BM microenvironment into a leukemia-permissive niche. Although several EV isolation methods have been developed, it remains a major challenge to define the most accurate and reliable procedure. Here, we tested the efficacy and functional assay compatibility of four different EV isolation methods in leukemia-derived EVs: (1) membrane affinity-based: exoEasy Kit alone and (2) in combination with Amicon filtration; (3) precipitation: ExoQuick-TC; and (4) ultracentrifugation (UC). Western blot analysis of EV fractions showed the highest enrichment of EV marker expression (e.g., CD63, HSP70, and TSG101) by precipitation with removal of overabundant soluble proteins [e.g., bovine serum albumin (BSA)], which were not discarded using UC. Besides the presence of damaged EVs after UC, intact EVs were successfully isolated with all methods as evidenced by highly maintained spherical- and cup-shaped vesicles in transmission electron microscopy. Nanoparticle tracking analysis of EV particle size and concentration revealed significant differences in EV isolation efficacy, with exoEasy Kit providing the highest EV yield recovery. Of note, functional assays with exoEasy Kit-isolated EVs showed significant toxicity towards treated target cells [e.g., mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs)], which was abrogated when combining exoEasy Kit with Amicon filtration. Additionally, MSC treated with green fluorescent protein (GFP)-tagged exoEasy Kit-isolated EVs did not show any EV uptake, while EV isolation by precipitation demonstrated efficient EV internalization. Taken together, the choice of EV isolation procedure significantly impacts the yield and potential functionality of leukemia-derived EVs. The cheapest method (UC) resulted in contaminated and destructed EV fractions, while the isolation method with the highest EV yield (exoEasy Kit) appeared to be incompatible with functional assays. We identified two methods (precipitation-based ExoQuick-TC and membrane affinity-based exoEasy Kit combined with Amicon filtration) yielding pure and intact EVs, also suitable for application in functional assays. This study highlights the importance of selecting the right EV isolation method depending on the desired experimental design. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9574064/ /pubmed/36263223 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.949261 Text en Copyright © 2022 Lang, Buck, Rivière, Stambouli, Sachenbacher, Choudhary, Dietz, Giebel, Bassermann, Oostendorp, Götze and Hecker https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Lang, Jonas B.
Buck, Michèle C.
Rivière, Jennifer
Stambouli, Oumaima
Sachenbacher, Ken
Choudhary, Purva
Dietz, Hendrik
Giebel, Bernd
Bassermann, Florian
Oostendorp, Robert A. J.
Götze, Katharina S.
Hecker, Judith S.
Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines
title Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines
title_full Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines
title_short Comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human AML bone marrow cells and AML cell lines
title_sort comparative analysis of extracellular vesicle isolation methods from human aml bone marrow cells and aml cell lines
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9574064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36263223
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.949261
work_keys_str_mv AT langjonasb comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT buckmichelec comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT rivierejennifer comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT stamboulioumaima comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT sachenbacherken comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT choudharypurva comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT dietzhendrik comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT giebelbernd comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT bassermannflorian comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT oostendorprobertaj comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT gotzekatharinas comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines
AT heckerjudiths comparativeanalysisofextracellularvesicleisolationmethodsfromhumanamlbonemarrowcellsandamlcelllines