The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms
Open accessAbstract
We compared four orthogonal technologies for sizing, counting, and phenotyping of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and synthetic particles. The platforms were: single‐particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP‐IRIS) with fluorescence, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) with fluorescence, microfluidic resistive pulse sensing (MRPS), and nanoflow cytometry measurement (NFCM). EVs from the human T lymphocyte line H9 (high CD81, low CD63) and the promonocytic line U937 (low CD81, high CD63) were separated from culture conditioned medium (CCM) by differential ultracentrifugation (dUC) or a combination of ultrafiltration (UF) and size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and Western blot (WB). Mixtures of synthetic particles (silica and polystyrene spheres) with known sizes and/or concentrations were also tested. MRPS and NFCM returned similar particle counts, while NTA detected counts approximately one order of magnitude lower for EVs, but not for synthetic particles. SP‐IRIS events could not be used to estimate particle concentrations. For sizing, SP‐IRIS, MRPS, and NFCM returned similar size profiles, with smaller sizes predominating (per power law distribution), but with sensitivity typically dropping off below diameters of 60 nm. NTA detected a population of particles with a mode diameter greater than 100 nm. Additionally, SP‐IRIS, MRPS, and NFCM were able to identify at least three of four distinct size populations in a mixture of silica or polystyrene nanoparticles. Finally, for tetraspanin phenotyping, the SP‐IRIS platform in fluorescence mode was able to detect at least two markers on the same particle, while NFCM detected either CD81 or CD63. Based on the results of this study, we can draw conclusions about existing single‐particle analysis capabilities that may be useful for EV biomarker development and mechanistic studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Théry, C., Witwer, K. W., Aikawa, E., Alcaraz, M. J., Anderson, J. D., Andriantsitohaina, R., Antoniou, A., Arab, T., Archer, F., Atkin‐Smith, G. K., et al. (2018) · Journal of Extracellular Vesicles · doi:10.1080/20013078.2018.1535750 · Cited by 11,099
Self-citationIsolation and Characterization of Exosomes from Cell Culture Supernatants and Biological Fluids
Théry, C., Amigorena, S., Raposo, G., & Clayton, A. (2006) · Current Protocols in Cell Biology · doi:10.1002/0471143030.cb0322s30 · Cited by 5,766
Ectosomes and exosomes: shedding the confusion between extracellular vesicles
Cocucci, E., & Meldolesi, J. (2015) · Trends in Cell Biology · doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2015.01.004 · Cited by 1,435
EV-TRACK: transparent reporting and centralizing knowledge in extracellular vesicle research
EV-TRACK Consortium, Van Deun, J., Mestdagh, P., Agostinis, P., Akay, Ö., Anand, S., Anckaert, J., Martinez, Z. A., Baetens, T., Beghein, E., et al. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4185 · Cited by 1,284
Self-citation
Cited by
Welsh, J. A., Goberdhan, D. C. I., O'Driscoll, L., Buzas, E. I., Blenkiron, C., Bussolati, B., Cai, H., Di Vizio, D., Driedonks, T. A. P., Erdbrügger, U., et al. (2024) · Journal of Extracellular Vesicles · doi:10.1002/jev2.12404 · Cited by 4,663
Self-citationChallenges and directions in studying cell–cell communication by extracellular vesicles
van Niel, G., Carter, D. R. F., Clayton, A., Lambert, D. W., Raposo, G., & Vader, P. (2022) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-022-00460-3 · Cited by 1,229
Visan, K. S., Lobb, R. J., Ham, S., Lima, L. G., Palma, C., Edna, C. P. Z., Wu, L., Gowda, H., Datta, K. K., Hartel, G., et al. (2022) · Journal of Extracellular Vesicles · doi:10.1002/jev2.12266 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- Arab, T., Mallick, E. R., Huang, Y., Dong, L., Liao, Z., Zhao, Z., Gololobova, O., Smith, B., Haughey, N. J., Pienta, K. J., Slusher, B. S., Tarwater, P. M., Tosar, J. P., Zivkovic, A. M., Vreeland, W. N., Paulaitis, M. E., & Witwer, K. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e12079-e12079
- ISSN
- 2001-3078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3143289476
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
