4.6 Review

Conventional and Nonconventional Sources of Exosomes-Isolation Methods and Influence on Their Downstream Biomedical Application

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.846650

关键词

exosomes; isolation methods; sources of exosomes; storage of exosomes; biomedical application of exosomes

资金

  1. SGS Faculty of Science [53221 16 2013 01]
  2. Internal Grant Agency, Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem
  3. Czech Science Foundation [20-21421S]
  4. European Union European Structural and Investments Funds [CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17 _048/0007411, CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/19_073/0016947]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides a brief summary of conventional and nonconventional sources of extracellular vesicles (EVs), storage conditions, isolation methods, and their significance in biomedical applications, especially in diagnostics, therapy, aging, and COVID-19-related issues.
Despite extensive study of extracellular vesicles (EVs), specifically exosomes (EXs) as biomarkers, important modulators of physiological or pathological processes, or therapeutic agents, relatively little is known about nonconventional sources of EXs, such as invertebrate or plant EXs, and their uses. Likewise, there is no clear information on the overview of storage conditions and currently used isolation methods, including new ones, such as microfluidics, which fundamentally affect the characterization of EXs and their other biomedical applications. The purpose of this review is to briefly summarize conventional and nonconventional sources of EXs, storage conditions and typical isolation methods, widely used kits and new smart technologies with emphasis on the influence of isolation techniques on EX content, protein detection, RNA, mRNA and others. At the same time, attention is paid to a brief overview of the direction of biomedical application of EXs, especially in diagnostics, therapy, senescence and aging and, with regard to the current situation, in issues related to Covid-19.

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

4.6
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