4.7 Review

Methods for the identification and characterization of extracellular vesicles in cardiovascular studies: from exosomes to microvesicles

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 119, 期 1, 页码 45-63

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvac031

关键词

Exosomes; Microvesicles; Cardiovascular diseases; Biodistribution; Therapeutics; Blood; Heart; Extracellular vesicle composition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides an overview of the techniques and technologies available for the separation and characterization of EVs from different sources. It discusses methods for determining the protein, RNA, and lipid content of EVs. The guidance provided in this document is important for investigating the role of EVs in cardiovascular diseases and highlights key methodological issues to consider.
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanosized vesicles with a lipid bilayer that are released from cells of the cardiovascular system, and are considered important mediators of intercellular and extracellular communications. Two types of EVs of particular interest are exosomes and microvesicles, which have been identified in all tissue and body fluids and carry a variety of molecules including RNAs, proteins, and lipids. EVs have potential for use in the diagnosis and prognosis of cardiovascular diseases and as new therapeutic agents, particularly in the setting of myocardial infarction and heart failure. Despite their promise, technical challenges related to their small size make it challenging to accurately identify and characterize them, and to study EV-mediated processes. Here, we aim to provide the reader with an overview of the techniques and technologies available for the separation and characterization of EVs from different sources. Methods for determining the protein, RNA, and lipid content of EVs are discussed. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on critical methodological issues and highlight key points for consideration for the investigation of EVs in cardiovascular 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