4.7 Article

Comparative Analysis of Platelet-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Using Flow Cytometry and Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22083839

关键词

extracellular vesicles; flow cytometry; nanoparticle tracking analysis; phosphatidylserine; platelets

资金

  1. Lower Austrian Research Funding Organization NFB [LS16-018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the differences in counting and characterizing platelet-derived EVs using different instruments and techniques. Flow cytometry and nanoparticle tracking analysis can accurately quantify the number of EVs, and reveal potential discrepancies in counts between different instruments.
Growing interest in extracellular vesicles (EVs) has prompted the advancements of protocols for improved EV characterization. As a high-throughput, multi-parameter, and single particle technique, flow cytometry is widely used for EV characterization. The comparison of data on EV concentration, however, is hindered by the lack of standardization between different protocols and instruments. Here, we quantified EV counts of platelet-derived EVs, using two flow cytometers (Gallios and CytoFLEX LX) and nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). Phosphatidylserine-exposing EVs were identified by labelling with lactadherin (LA). Calibration with silica-based fluorescent beads showed detection limits of 300 nm and 150 nm for Gallios and CytoFLEX LX, respectively. Accordingly, CytoFLEX LX yielded 40-fold higher EV counts and 13-fold higher counts of LA(+)CD41(+) EVs compared to Gallios. NTA in fluorescence mode (F-NTA) demonstrated that only 9.5% of all vesicles detected in scatter mode exposed phosphatidylserine, resulting in good agreement of LA(+) EVs for CytoFLEX LX and F-NTA. Since certain functional characteristics, such as the exposure of pro-coagulant phosphatidylserine, are not equally displayed across the entire EV size range, our study highlights the necessity of indicating the size range of EVs detected with a given approach along with the EV concentration to support the comparability between different studies.

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

4.7
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