4.8 Article

Concentration-Normalized Electroanalytical Assaying of Exosomal Markers

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 89, Issue 5, Pages 3184-3190

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b05037

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/M006204/1]
  2. Wellcome Trust [097479/Z/11/Z]
  3. Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  4. Alzheimers Research UK [ARUK-PPG2015B-2] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M006204/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Parkinson's UK [J-1403] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. EPSRC [EP/M006204/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Wellcome Trust [097479/Z/11/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exosomes are both active in mediating intracellular communication and potentially present a potent cargo of disease biomarkers to an assay. The robust evaluation of exosomal markers could lead to a paradigm shift in clinical analysis and associated care. To date, much of this has been hindered by issues of sample preparation and assay signal-tonoise. We introduce here the use of ultrasensitive electrochemical impedance spectroscopy to quantify both external (tetraspanin) and internal (syntenin) exosome-specific markers. Associated exosome detection limits are 1.9 X 105 particles mL(-1) (equivalent to 320 aM or 9500 exosomes in 50 mu L) for intact exosomes and 3 S picomolar for internal exosomal syntenin levels with almost 5 decades of linear dynamic range. Sample preparation can be carried out by simple fine filtering of cell-conditioned medium prior to a non-NTA-determined (i.e., nanoparticle tracking analysis) exosome concentration analysis, lysing, and subsequent internal syntenin quantification. Such concentration-normalized dual-marker analysis can be used to define analytical zones in a manner which is then independent of absolute exosome concentration and sample preparation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available