4.8 Article

Reflecting Size Differences of Exosomes by Using the Combination of Membrane-Targeting Viscosity Probe and Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging Microscopy

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 91, 期 23, 页码 15308-15316

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b04587

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21421005, 21576040, 21776037]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT18RC(3)027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exosomes are cell-secreted membrane-coated vesicles with their sizes variable from 30 to 150 nm. So far, there is no simple, fast, and economical way to evaluate the sizes of exosomes in living systems. Here, we put forward a hypothesis in which the sphere sizes (resulting in different curvature) may affect the local mobility/viscosity of exosome membranes. Based on this hypothesis, we propose a novel method to evaluate the exosome sizes by quantifying the membrane viscosity. For this sake, we design a membrane targeting molecular rotor with its fluorescence lifetime sensitive to viscosity and use it under a fluorescence lifetime imaging microscope (FLIM). Through a multiple-step ultrafiltration technique, we isolate three individual size distributions (10-50, 50-100, and 100-220 nm) with exosomes from HeLa and MCF-7 cell culture media and then perform the FLIM assay on the above two groups. In both cases, we indeed find a regular pattern in which the membrane viscosity reflected by lifetime decreases with exosome sizes. We then perform the assay on exosomes from cancer cells, corresponding normal tissue cells, and serum of breast cancer patients. We find that exosomes from cancer cells have a fluorescence lifetime (larger viscosity) longer than that of normal tissue cells. The average fluorescence lifetime of exosomes from a triple-negative breast cancer patient is longer (or the viscosity is larger) than that of a HER2 positive one. Therefore, our new and simple method may hold application prospects in future cancer diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据