Cited by 1,423Extracellular vesicles in diseaseCellular transport and secretionNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 25 of the 47 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Biogenesis of extracellular vesicles (EV): exosomes, microvesicles, retrovirus-like vesicles, and apoptotic bodies

Open access
Akers, Johnny C., Gonda, David, Kim, Ryan, Carter, Bob S., Chen, Clark C.·2013·Journal of Neuro-Oncology

Abstract

Recent studies suggest both normal and cancerous cells secrete vesicles into the extracellular space. These extracellular vesicles (EVs) contain materials that mirror the genetic and proteomic content of the secreting cell. The identification of cancer-specific material in EVs isolated from the biofluids (e.g., serum, cerebrospinal fluid, urine) of cancer patients suggests EVs as an attractive platform for biomarker development. It is important to recognize that the EVs derived from clinical samples are likely highly heterogeneous in make-up and arose from diverse sets of biologic processes. This article aims to review the biologic processes that give rise to various types of EVs, including exosomes, microvesicles, retrovirus like particles, and apoptotic bodies. Clinical pertinence of these EVs to neuro-oncology will also be discussed.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a heterogeneous mix of exosomes, microvesicles, retrovirus-like particles, and apoptotic bodies that differ in biogenesis, size, and marker profile. The review argues that these differences matter for neuro-oncology biomarker and therapeutic development, while current isolation and marker definitions remain imperfect.

Key findings

  • EVs arise through distinct routes: exosomes from endosomal multivesicular bodies, microvesicles from outward plasma membrane budding, retrovirus-like particles from retroviral protein-driven budding, and apoptotic bodies from programmed cell death.
  • Reported size ranges overlap: exosomes are 30–100 nm, microvesicles 50–2000 nm, retrovirus-like particles 90–100 nm, and apoptotic bodies 500–4000 nm, with smaller 50–500 nm vesicles also released during apoptosis.
  • Candidate markers include CD63/CD9 for exosomes, ARF6 and VAMP3 for microvesicles, Gag for retrovirus-like particles, and thrombospondin/C3b for apoptotic bodies, but the review notes that marker sensitivity and specificity have not been carefully validated.
  • Clinically, EV cargo can protect tumor-derived RNA and protein, and examples include detection of EGFRvIII, IDH-1, and c-myc; a microfluidic μNMR device detected glioblastoma-associated proteins with sensitivity orders of magnitude above Western blotting and ELISA and tracked clinical response in serial serum samples.

Methods

  • Narrative review of published literature on EV biogenesis, isolation, surface markers, and clinical applications, with emphasis on neuro-oncology.
  • Synthesizes cell biology studies, marker studies, and clinical biomarker/therapeutic reports rather than presenting new experimental data.
  • No systematic search strategy or primary sample collection is described.

Limitations

  • The paper states that EV terminology is not standardized, that marker studies were largely performed in non-neoplastic cell lines, and that biogenesis remains incompletely understood; ESCRT-independent exosomes may lack standard markers such as CD63 or CD9.
  • The paper states that tumor-derived EVs are a small minority among biofluid EVs, creating sensitivity challenges, and that current isolation often relies on size/density or CD63, which may not be specific to one EV type.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not provide primary data or a systematic methodology, and its proposed marker schema requires further validation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11060-013-1084-8

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

11 Partly supported · 6 Own interpretation · 4 No full text of the sources · 2 Supported · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 5 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 15
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 5
20 of 20
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    EVs derived from clinical samples are highly heterogeneous in make-up and arise from diverse biologic processes.

    “It is important to recognize that the EV derived from clinical samples are likely highly heterogeneous in make-up and arose from diverse sets of biologic processes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Multiple types of EV may be present in a given biofluid.

    “it is important to recognize and understand that multiple types of EV may be present in a given biofluid.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Markers for EV types are established using non-neoplastic cell lines.

    “It is important to recognize that these markers are established using non-neoplastic cell lines.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cellular processes leading to formation of the various types of vesicles remain incompletely understood.

    “the cellular processes leading to the formation of the various types of vesicles remain incompletely understood.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no general consensus as to the best method for EV isolation.

    “There is no general consensus as to the best method for isolation.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

2 retracted

Show all 125 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bronson DL et al (1979) Induction of retrovirus particles in human testicular tumor (Tera-1) cell cultures: an electron microscopic study. J Natl Cancer Inst 63(2):337–339

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 1,417

Metadata

Authors
Akers, J. C., Gonda, D., Kim, R., Carter, B. S., & Chen, C. C.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Clark C.
Venue
Journal of Neuro-Oncology
Published
2013-03-02
Volume
113
Issue
1
Pages
1-11
ISSN
  • 0167-594X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7373
OpenAlex
W1990597414
Cited by
1,423
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 126 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 153 · 2022: 164 · 2021: 179 · 2020: 135 · 2019: 120 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 9
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuro-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UH2TR000931, UH3TR000931)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Extracellular vesicles in disease
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular transport and secretion
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Keywords
extracellular vesicles, exosomes, microvesicles, apoptotic bodies, vesicle biogenesis, tumor markers, biological fluids, neuro-oncology, tumor-derived extracellular vesicles
MeSH terms
Humans, Retroviridae, Biomarkers, Apoptosis, Exosomes

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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