4.7 Article

Enrichment of extracellular vesicles from human synovial fluid using size exclusion chromatography

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/20013078.2018.1490145

关键词

Synovial fluid; extracellular vesicles; ultracentrifugation; sucrose density gradient ultracentrifugation; size exclusion chromatography; high-density lipoprotein; serum albumin; fibronectin; extracellular matrix; rheumatoid arthritis

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [GNT1064591]
  2. Reid Family Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a complex biological fluid, human synovial fluid (SF) presents challenges for extracellular vesicle (EV) enrichment using standard methods. In this study of human SF, a size exclusion chromatography (SEC)-based method of EV enrichment is shown to deplete contaminants that remain after standard ultracentrifugation-based enrichment methods. Specifically, considerable levels of serum albumin, the high-density lipoprotein marker, apolipoprotein A-l, fibronectin and other extracellular proteins and debris are present in EVs prepared by differential ultracentrifugation. While the addition of a sucrose density gradient purification step improved purification quality, some contamination remained. In contrast, using a SEC-based approach, SF EVs were efficiently separated from serum albumin, apolipoprotein A-l and additional contaminating proteins that co-purified with high-speed centrifugation. Finally, using high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis, we found that residual contaminants which remain after SEC, such as fibronectin and other extracellular proteins, can be successfully depleted by proteinase K. Taken together, our results highlight the limitations of ultracentrifugation-based methods of EV isolation from complex biological fluids and suggest that SEC can be used to obtain higher purity EV samples. In this way, SEC-based methods are likely to be useful for identifying EV-enriched components and improving understanding of EV function in disease.

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