Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Confounding factors of ultrafiltration and protein analysis in extracellular vesicle research

Open access
Vergauwen, Glenn, Dhondt, Bert, Van Deun, Jan, De Smedt, Eva, Berx, Geert, Timmerman, Evy, Gevaert, Kris, Miinalainen, Ilkka, Cocquyt, Véronique, Braems, Geert, Van den Broecke, Rudy, Denys, Hannelore, De Wever, Olivier, Hendrix, An·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Identification and validation of extracellular vesicle (EV)-associated biomarkers requires robust isolation and characterization protocols. We assessed the impact of some commonly implemented pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical variables in EV research. Centrifugal filters with different membrane types and pore sizes are used to reduce large volume biofluids prior to EV isolation or to concentrate EVs. We compared five commonly reported filters for their efficiency when using plasma, urine and EV-spiked PBS. Regenerated cellulose membranes with pore size of 10 kDa recovered EVs the most efficient. Less than 40% recovery was achieved with other filters. Next, we analyzed the effect of the type of protein assays to measure EV protein in colorimetric and fluorometric kits. The fluorometric assay Qubit measured low concentration EV and BSA samples the most accurately with the lowest variation among technical and biological replicates. Lastly, we quantified Optiprep remnants in EV samples from density gradient ultracentrifugation and demonstrate that size-exclusion chromatography efficiently removes Optiprep from EVs. In conclusion, choice of centrifugal filters and protein assays confound EV analysis and should be carefully considered to increase efficiency towards biomarker discovery. SEC-based removal of Optiprep remnants from EVs can be considered for downstream applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-017-02599-y

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Vergauwen, G., Dhondt, B., Van Deun, J., De Smedt, E., Berx, G., Timmerman, E., Gevaert, K., Miinalainen, I., Cocquyt, V., Braems, G., Van den Broecke, R., Denys, H., De Wever, O., & Hendrix, A.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-06-02
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
2704-2704
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2619136320
Cited by
270
References
3
FWCI
6.89
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confounding factors of ultrafiltration and protein analysis in extracellular vesicle research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-017-02599-y
The paper
Vergauwen, G., Dhondt, B., Van Deun, J., De Smedt, E., Berx, G., Timmerman, E., Gevaert, K., Miinalainen, I., Cocquyt, V., Braems, G., Van den Broecke, R., Denys, H., De Wever, O., & Hendrix, A. (2017). Confounding factors of ultrafiltration and protein analysis in extracellular vesicle research. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02599-y

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.