Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,421

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardization of sample collection, isolation and analysis methods in extracellular vesicle research

Open access
Witwer, Kenneth W., Buzás, Edit I., Bemis, Lynne T., Bora, Adriana, Lässer, Cecilia, Lötvall, Jan, Nolte‐‘t Hoen, Esther N., Piper, Melissa G., Sivaraman, Sarada, Skog, Johan, Théry, Clotilde, Wauben, Marca H., Hochberg, Fred·2013·Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
DOI 10.3402/jev.v2i0.20360
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The emergence of publications on extracellular RNA (exRNA) and extracellular vesicles (EV) has highlighted the potential of these molecules and vehicles as biomarkers of disease and therapeutic targets. These findings have created a paradigm shift, most prominently in the field of oncology, prompting expanded interest in the field and dedication of funds for EV research. At the same time, understanding of EV subtypes, biogenesis, cargo and mechanisms of shuttling remains incomplete. The techniques that can be harnessed to address the many gaps in our current knowledge were the subject of a special workshop of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) in New York City in October 2012. As part of the “ISEV Research Seminar: Analysis and Function of RNA in Extracellular Vesicles (evRNA)”, 6 round‐table discussions were held to provide an evidence‐based framework for isolation and analysis of EV, purification and analysis of associated RNA molecules, and molecular engineering of EV for therapeutic intervention. This article arises from the discussion of EV isolation and analysis at that meeting. The conclusions of the round table are supplemented with a review of published materials and our experience. Controversies and outstanding questions are identified that may inform future research and funding priorities. While we emphasize the need for standardization of specimen handling, appropriate normative controls, and isolation and analysis techniques to facilitate comparison of results, we also recognize that continual development and evaluation of techniques will be necessary as new knowledge is amassed. On many points, consensus has not yet been achieved and must be built through the reporting of well‐controlled experiments.

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 · 10.3402/jev.v2i0.20360

Cites

31 of 31 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

Cited by

See all 2,421

Metadata

Authors
Witwer, K. W., Buzás, E. I., Bemis, L. T., Bora, A., Lässer, C., Lötvall, J., Nolte‐‘t Hoen, E. N., Piper, M. G., Sivaraman, S., Skog, J., Théry, C., Wauben, M. H., & Hochberg, F.
Venue
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
ISSN
2001-3078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3402/jev.v2i0.20360
OpenAlex
W2007499410
Cited by
2,421
References
31
FWCI
52.18
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.