Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extracellular Vesicle (EV) Array: microarray capturing of exosomes and other extracellular vesicles for multiplexed phenotyping

Open access
Jørgensen, Malene, Bæk, Rikke, Pedersen, Shona, Søndergaard, Evo K.L., Kristensen, Søren R., Varming, Kim·2013·Journal of Extracellular Vesicles

Abstract

Background: Exosomes are one of the several types of cell‐derived vesicles with a diameter of 30–100 nm. These extracellular vesicles are recognized as potential markers of human diseases such as cancer. However, their use in diagnostic tests requires an objective and high‐throughput method to define their phenotype and determine their concentration in biological fluids. To identify circulating as well as cell culture‐derived vesicles, the current standard is immunoblotting or a flow cytometrical analysis for specific proteins, both of which requires large amounts of purified vesicles. Methods: Based on the technology of protein microarray, we hereby present a highly sensitive Extracellular Vesicle (EV) Array capable of detecting and phenotyping exosomes and other extracellular vesicles from unpurified starting material in a high‐throughput manner. To only detect the exosomes captured on the EV Array, a cocktail of antibodies against the tetraspanins CD9, CD63 and CD81 was used. These antibodies were selected to ensure that all exosomes captured are detected, and concomitantly excluding the detection of other types of microvesicles. Results: The limit of detection (LOD) was determined on exosomes derived from the colon cancer cell line LS180. It clarified that supernatant from only approximately 10 4 cells was needed to obtain signals or that only 2.5×10 4 exosomes were required for each microarray spot (~1 nL). Phenotyping was performed on plasma (1–10 µL) from 7 healthy donors, which were applied to the EV Array with a panel of antibodies against 21 different cellular surface antigens and cancer antigens. For each donor, there was considerable heterogeneity in the expression levels of individual markers. The protein profiles of the exosomes (defined as positive for CD9, CD63 and CD81) revealed that only the expression level of CD9 and CD81 was approximately equal in the 7 donors. This implies questioning the use of CD63 as a standard exosomal marker since the expression level of this tetraspanin was considerably lower.

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.v2i0.20920

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jørgensen, M., Bæk, R., Pedersen, S., Søndergaard, E. K. L., Kristensen, S. R., & Varming, K.
Venue
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
ISSN
2001-3078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013057431
Cited by
252
References
2
FWCI
6.86
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.