4.6 Review

Exosome separation using microfluidic systems: size-based, immunoaffinity-based and dynamic methodologies

Journal

BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/biot.201600699

Keywords

Exosomes; Extracellular vesicles; Microfluidics; Separation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31570934, 81428006]
  2. S&T Development Planning Program of Jilin Province [20150414027GH, 20160101213JC]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [451160306023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exosomes, nanovesicles secreted by most types of cells, exist in virtually all bodily fluids. Their rich nucleic acid and protein content make them potentially valuable biomarkers for noninvasive molecular diagnostics. They also show promise, after further development, to serve as a drug delivery system. Unfortunately, existing exosome separation technologies, such as ultracentrifugation and methods incorporating magnetic beads, are time-consuming, laborious and separate only exosomes of low purity. Thus, a more effective separation method is highly desirable. Microfluidic platforms are ideal tools for exosome separation, since they enable fast, cost-efficient, portable and precise processing of nanoparticles and small volumes of liquid samples. Recently, several microfluidic-based exosome separation technologies have been studied. In this article, the advantages of the most recent technologies, as well as their limitations, challenges and potential uses in novel microfluidic exosome separation and collection applications is reviewed. This review outlines the uses of new powerful microfluidic exosome detection tools for biologists and clinicians, as well as exosome separation tools for microfluidic engineers. Current challenges of exosome separation methodologies are also described, in order to highlight areas for future research and development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available