4.8 Article

Possibilities and limitations of current technologies for quantification of biological extracellular vesicles and synthetic mimics

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 87-96

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.12.041

关键词

Extracellular vesicles; Exosomes; Liposomes; Nanoparticle tracking analysis; Tunable resistive pulse sensing; High-resolution flow cytometry

资金

  1. Hersenstichting Nederland [2013-01]
  2. Schumacher Kramer Stichting [11-04-2014]
  3. T & P Bohnenn Foundation
  4. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP)/ERC [337581]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nano-sized extracelullar vesicles (EVs) released by various cell types play important roles in a plethora of (patho) physiological processes and are increasingly recognized as biomarkers for disease. In addition, engineered EV and EV-inspired liposomes hold great potential as drug delivery systems. Major technologies developed for high-throughput analysis of individual EV include nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), tunable resistive pulse sensing (tRPS) and high-resolution flow cytometry (hFC). Currently, there is a need for comparative studies on the available technologies to improve standardization of vesicle analysis in diagnostic or therapeutic settings. We investigated the possibilities, limitations and comparability of NTA, tRPS and hFC for analysis of tumor cell-derived EVs and synthetic mimics (i.e. differently sized liposomes). NTA and tRPS instrument settings were identified that significantly affected the quantification of these particles. Furthermore, we detailed the differences in absolute quantification of EVs and liposomes using the three technologies. This study increases our understanding of possibilities and pitfalls of NTA, tRPS and hFC, which will benefit standardized and large-scale clinical application of (engineered) EVs and EV-mimics in the future. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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