Search > Results

You searched for: EV180021 (EV-TRACK ID)

Showing 1 - 4 of 4

Experiment number
  • If needed, multiple experiments were identified in a single publication based on differing sample types, isolation protocols and/or vesicle types of interest.
Species
  • Species of origin of the EVs.
Isolation protocol
  • Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the different steps of the isolation protocol.
    • dUC = differential ultracentrifugation
    • DG = density gradient
    • UF = ultrafiltration
    • SEC = size-exclusion chromatography
Experiment number
  • Experiments differ in Sample type, Vesicle type
Experiment number
  • Experiments differ in Sample type, Vesicle type
Experiment number
  • Experiments differ in Sample type, Vesicle type
Experiment number
  • Experiments differ in Sample type, Vesicle type
Details EV-TRACK ID Experiment nr. Species Sample type Isolation protocol First author Year EV-METRIC
EV180021 3/4 Homo sapiens Serum dUC
Filtration
Bachurski, Daniel 2019 77%

Study summary

Full title
All authors
Daniel Bachurski ORCID Icon, Maximiliane Schuldner, Phuong-Hien Nguyen, Alexandra Malz, Katrin S Reiners, Patricia C Grenzi ORCID Icon, Felix Babatz, Astrid C Schauss, Hinrich P Hansen, Michael Hallek & Elke Pogge von Strandmann
Journal
J Extracell Vesicles
Abstract
The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods t (show more...)The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods to characterize single EVs. Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) is commonly used to determine EV concentration and diameter. As the EV field is lacking methods to easily confirm and validate NTA data, questioning the reliability of measurements remains highly important. In this regard, a comparison addressing measurement quality between different NTA devices such as Malvern’s NanoSight NS300 or Particle Metrix’ ZetaView has not yet been conducted. To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of size and concentration determinations of both devices, we employed comparative methods including transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and single particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP-IRIS) by ExoView. Multiple test measurements with nanospheres, liposomes and ultracentrifuged EVs from human serum and cell culture supernatant were performed. Additionally, serial dilutions and freeze-thaw cycle-dependent EV decrease were measured to determine the robustness of each system. Strikingly, NanoSight NS300 exhibited a 2.0–2.1-fold overestimation of polystyrene and silica nanosphere concentration. By measuring serial dilutions of EV samples, we demonstrated higher accuracy in concentration determination by ZetaView (% BIAS range: 2.7–8.5) in comparison with NanoSight NS300 (% BIAS range: 32.9–36.8). The concentration measurements by ZetaView were also more precise (% CV range: 0.0–4.7) than measurements by NanoSight NS300 (% CV range: 5.4–10.7). On the contrary, quantitative TEM imaging indicated more accurate EV sizing by NanoSight NS300 (% DTEM range: 79.5–134.3) compared to ZetaView (% DTEM range: 111.8–205.7), while being equally repeatable (NanoSight NS300% CV range: 0.8–6.7; ZetaView: 1.4–7.8). However, both devices failed to report a peak EV diameter below 60 nm compared to TEM and SP-IRIS. Taken together, NTA devices differ strongly in their hardware and software affecting measuring results. ZetaView provided a more accurate and repeatable depiction of EV concentration, whereas NanoSight NS300 supplied size measurements of higher resolution. (hide)
EV-METRIC
77% (99th percentile of all experiments on the same sample type)
 Reported
 Not reported
 Not applicable
EV-enriched proteins
Protein analysis: analysis of three or more EV-enriched proteins
non EV-enriched protein
Protein analysis: assessment of a non-EV-enriched protein
qualitative and quantitative analysis
Particle analysis: implementation of both qualitative and quantitative methods
electron microscopy images
Particle analysis: inclusion of a widefield and close-up electron microscopy image
density gradient
Isolation method: density gradient, at least as validation of results attributed to EVs
EV density
Isolation method: reporting of obtained EV density
ultracentrifugation specifics
Isolation method: reporting of g-forces, duration and rotor type of ultracentrifugation steps
antibody specifics
Protein analysis: antibody clone/reference number and dilution
lysate preparation
Protein analysis: lysis buffer composition
Study data
Sample type
Serum
Sample origin
Control condition
Focus vesicles
extracellular vesicle
Isolation protocol
Isolation protocol
  • Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the
    different steps of the isolation protocol.
    • dUC = differential ultracentrifugation
    • DG = density gradient
    • UF = ultrafiltration
    • SEC = size-exclusion chromatography
dUC + Filtration
Adj. k-factor
209.7 (pelleting) / 89.2 (washing)
Protein markers
EV: CD63/ HSP70/ TSG101/ CD9/ CD81
non-EV: Calnexin
Proteomics
no
Show all info
Study aim
Technical analysis comparing/optimizing EV-related methods
Sample
Species
Homo sapiens
Sample Type
Serum
Sample Condition
Control condition
Isolation Method
Differential ultracentrifugation
dUC: centrifugation steps
Between 800 g and 10,000 g
Between 10,000 g and 50,000 g
Between 100,000 g and 150,000 g
Pelleting: time(min)
90
Pelleting: rotor type
Type 45 Ti
Pelleting: speed (g)
100000
Pelleting: adjusted k-factor
209.7
Wash: time (min)
90
Wash: Rotor Type
TLA-55
Wash: speed (g)
100000
Wash: adjusted k-factor
89.20
Filtration steps
0.22µm or 0.2µm
Characterization: Protein analysis
Protein Concentration Method
BCA
Western Blot
Antibody details provided?
Yes
Lysis buffer provided?
Yes
Detected EV-associated proteins
CD63, HSP70, TSG101
Not detected contaminants
Calnexin
Characterization: Lipid analysis
Yes
Characterization: Particle analysis
NTA
Report type
Size range/distribution
Reported size (nm)
50-200
EV concentration
Yes
EM
EM-type
Transmission-EM
Image type
Close-up, Wide-field
Report size (nm)
30-100
Other particle analysis name(1)
ExoView
Report type
Size range/distribution
Report size
50-100
EV-concentration
No
Extra information
EV-Track data set is associated with a technical paper comparing different NTA devices assessed by TEM and ExoView
EV180021 4/4 Homo sapiens Cell culture supernatant dUC
Filtration
Bachurski, Daniel 2019 77%

Study summary

Full title
All authors
Daniel Bachurski ORCID Icon, Maximiliane Schuldner, Phuong-Hien Nguyen, Alexandra Malz, Katrin S Reiners, Patricia C Grenzi ORCID Icon, Felix Babatz, Astrid C Schauss, Hinrich P Hansen, Michael Hallek & Elke Pogge von Strandmann
Journal
J Extracell Vesicles
Abstract
The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods t (show more...)The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods to characterize single EVs. Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) is commonly used to determine EV concentration and diameter. As the EV field is lacking methods to easily confirm and validate NTA data, questioning the reliability of measurements remains highly important. In this regard, a comparison addressing measurement quality between different NTA devices such as Malvern’s NanoSight NS300 or Particle Metrix’ ZetaView has not yet been conducted. To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of size and concentration determinations of both devices, we employed comparative methods including transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and single particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP-IRIS) by ExoView. Multiple test measurements with nanospheres, liposomes and ultracentrifuged EVs from human serum and cell culture supernatant were performed. Additionally, serial dilutions and freeze-thaw cycle-dependent EV decrease were measured to determine the robustness of each system. Strikingly, NanoSight NS300 exhibited a 2.0–2.1-fold overestimation of polystyrene and silica nanosphere concentration. By measuring serial dilutions of EV samples, we demonstrated higher accuracy in concentration determination by ZetaView (% BIAS range: 2.7–8.5) in comparison with NanoSight NS300 (% BIAS range: 32.9–36.8). The concentration measurements by ZetaView were also more precise (% CV range: 0.0–4.7) than measurements by NanoSight NS300 (% CV range: 5.4–10.7). On the contrary, quantitative TEM imaging indicated more accurate EV sizing by NanoSight NS300 (% DTEM range: 79.5–134.3) compared to ZetaView (% DTEM range: 111.8–205.7), while being equally repeatable (NanoSight NS300% CV range: 0.8–6.7; ZetaView: 1.4–7.8). However, both devices failed to report a peak EV diameter below 60 nm compared to TEM and SP-IRIS. Taken together, NTA devices differ strongly in their hardware and software affecting measuring results. ZetaView provided a more accurate and repeatable depiction of EV concentration, whereas NanoSight NS300 supplied size measurements of higher resolution. (hide)
EV-METRIC
77% (97th percentile of all experiments on the same sample type)
 Reported
 Not reported
 Not applicable
EV-enriched proteins
Protein analysis: analysis of three or more EV-enriched proteins
non EV-enriched protein
Protein analysis: assessment of a non-EV-enriched protein
qualitative and quantitative analysis
Particle analysis: implementation of both qualitative and quantitative methods
electron microscopy images
Particle analysis: inclusion of a widefield and close-up electron microscopy image
density gradient
Isolation method: density gradient, at least as validation of results attributed to EVs
EV density
Isolation method: reporting of obtained EV density
ultracentrifugation specifics
Isolation method: reporting of g-forces, duration and rotor type of ultracentrifugation steps
antibody specifics
Protein analysis: antibody clone/reference number and dilution
lysate preparation
Protein analysis: lysis buffer composition
Study data
Sample type
Cell culture supernatant
Sample origin
Control condition
Focus vesicles
extracellular vesicle
Isolation protocol
Isolation protocol
  • Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the
    different steps of the isolation protocol.
    • dUC = differential ultracentrifugation
    • DG = density gradient
    • UF = ultrafiltration
    • SEC = size-exclusion chromatography
dUC + Filtration
Adj. k-factor
209.7 (pelleting) / 89.2 (washing)
Protein markers
EV: CD63/ HSP70/ TSG101/ CD9/ CD81
non-EV: Calnexin
Proteomics
no
Show all info
Study aim
Technical analysis comparing/optimizing EV-related methods
Sample
Species
Homo sapiens
Sample Type
Cell culture supernatant
Sample Condition
Control condition
EV-producing cells
L540
EV-harvesting Medium
Serum free medium
Cell viability
95
Isolation Method
Differential ultracentrifugation
dUC: centrifugation steps
Between 800 g and 10,000 g
Between 10,000 g and 50,000 g
Between 100,000 g and 150,000 g
Pelleting: time(min)
90
Pelleting: rotor type
Type 45 Ti
Pelleting: speed (g)
100000
Pelleting: adjusted k-factor
209.7
Wash: time (min)
90
Wash: Rotor Type
TLA-55
Wash: speed (g)
100000
Wash: adjusted k-factor
89.20
Filtration steps
0.22µm or 0.2µm
Characterization: Protein analysis
Protein Concentration Method
BCA
Western Blot
Antibody details provided?
Yes
Lysis buffer provided?
Yes
Detected EV-associated proteins
CD63, HSP70, TSG101
Not detected contaminants
Calnexin
Characterization: Lipid analysis
Yes
Characterization: Particle analysis
NTA
Report type
Size range/distribution
Reported size (nm)
50-400
EV concentration
Yes
EM
EM-type
Transmission-EM
Image type
Close-up, Wide-field
Report size (nm)
30-150
Other particle analysis name(1)
ExoView
Report type
Size range/distribution
Report size
50-100
EV-concentration
No
Extra information
EV-Track data set is associated with a technical paper comparing different NTA devices assessed by TEM and ExoView
EV180021 1/4 Homo sapiens Cell culture supernatant dUC Bachurski, Daniel 2019 66%

Study summary

Full title
All authors
Daniel Bachurski ORCID Icon, Maximiliane Schuldner, Phuong-Hien Nguyen, Alexandra Malz, Katrin S Reiners, Patricia C Grenzi ORCID Icon, Felix Babatz, Astrid C Schauss, Hinrich P Hansen, Michael Hallek & Elke Pogge von Strandmann
Journal
J Extracell Vesicles
Abstract
The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods t (show more...)The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods to characterize single EVs. Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) is commonly used to determine EV concentration and diameter. As the EV field is lacking methods to easily confirm and validate NTA data, questioning the reliability of measurements remains highly important. In this regard, a comparison addressing measurement quality between different NTA devices such as Malvern’s NanoSight NS300 or Particle Metrix’ ZetaView has not yet been conducted. To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of size and concentration determinations of both devices, we employed comparative methods including transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and single particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP-IRIS) by ExoView. Multiple test measurements with nanospheres, liposomes and ultracentrifuged EVs from human serum and cell culture supernatant were performed. Additionally, serial dilutions and freeze-thaw cycle-dependent EV decrease were measured to determine the robustness of each system. Strikingly, NanoSight NS300 exhibited a 2.0–2.1-fold overestimation of polystyrene and silica nanosphere concentration. By measuring serial dilutions of EV samples, we demonstrated higher accuracy in concentration determination by ZetaView (% BIAS range: 2.7–8.5) in comparison with NanoSight NS300 (% BIAS range: 32.9–36.8). The concentration measurements by ZetaView were also more precise (% CV range: 0.0–4.7) than measurements by NanoSight NS300 (% CV range: 5.4–10.7). On the contrary, quantitative TEM imaging indicated more accurate EV sizing by NanoSight NS300 (% DTEM range: 79.5–134.3) compared to ZetaView (% DTEM range: 111.8–205.7), while being equally repeatable (NanoSight NS300% CV range: 0.8–6.7; ZetaView: 1.4–7.8). However, both devices failed to report a peak EV diameter below 60 nm compared to TEM and SP-IRIS. Taken together, NTA devices differ strongly in their hardware and software affecting measuring results. ZetaView provided a more accurate and repeatable depiction of EV concentration, whereas NanoSight NS300 supplied size measurements of higher resolution. (hide)
EV-METRIC
66% (94th percentile of all experiments on the same sample type)
 Reported
 Not reported
 Not applicable
EV-enriched proteins
Protein analysis: analysis of three or more EV-enriched proteins
non EV-enriched protein
Protein analysis: assessment of a non-EV-enriched protein
qualitative and quantitative analysis
Particle analysis: implementation of both qualitative and quantitative methods
electron microscopy images
Particle analysis: inclusion of a widefield and close-up electron microscopy image
density gradient
Isolation method: density gradient, at least as validation of results attributed to EVs
EV density
Isolation method: reporting of obtained EV density
ultracentrifugation specifics
Isolation method: reporting of g-forces, duration and rotor type of ultracentrifugation steps
antibody specifics
Protein analysis: antibody clone/reference number and dilution
lysate preparation
Protein analysis: lysis buffer composition
Study data
Sample type
Cell culture supernatant
Sample origin
Control condition
Focus vesicles
extracellular vesicle
Isolation protocol
Isolation protocol
  • Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the
    different steps of the isolation protocol.
    • dUC = differential ultracentrifugation
    • DG = density gradient
    • UF = ultrafiltration
    • SEC = size-exclusion chromatography
dUC
Adj. k-factor
892 (washing)
Protein markers
EV: CD63/ HSP70/ TSG101/ CD9/ CD81
non-EV: Calnexin
Proteomics
no
Show all info
Study aim
Technical analysis comparing/optimizing EV-related methods
Sample
Species
Homo sapiens
Sample Type
Cell culture supernatant
Sample Condition
Control condition
EV-producing cells
L540
EV-harvesting Medium
Serum free medium
Cell viability
95
Isolation Method
Differential ultracentrifugation
dUC: centrifugation steps
Between 800 g and 10,000 g
Between 10,000 g and 50,000 g
Pelleting: time(min)
30
Pelleting: speed (g)
10000
Wash: time (min)
30
Wash: Rotor Type
TLA-55
Wash: speed (g)
10000
Wash: adjusted k-factor
892.0
Characterization: Protein analysis
Protein Concentration Method
BCA
Western Blot
Antibody details provided?
Yes
Lysis buffer provided?
Yes
Detected EV-associated proteins
CD63, HSP70, TSG101
Not detected contaminants
Calnexin
Characterization: Lipid analysis
Yes
Characterization: Particle analysis
NTA
Report type
Size range/distribution
Reported size (nm)
100-500
EV concentration
Yes
EM
EM-type
Transmission-EM
Image type
Close-up, Wide-field
Report size (nm)
30-200
Other particle analysis name(1)
ExoView
Report type
Size range/distribution
Report size
50-200
EV-concentration
No
Extra information
EV-Track data set is associated with a technical paper comparing different NTA devices assessed by TEM and ExoView
EV180021 2/4 Homo sapiens Serum dUC Bachurski, Daniel 2019 66%

Study summary

Full title
All authors
Daniel Bachurski ORCID Icon, Maximiliane Schuldner, Phuong-Hien Nguyen, Alexandra Malz, Katrin S Reiners, Patricia C Grenzi ORCID Icon, Felix Babatz, Astrid C Schauss, Hinrich P Hansen, Michael Hallek & Elke Pogge von Strandmann
Journal
J Extracell Vesicles
Abstract
The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods t (show more...)The expanding field of extracellular vesicle (EV) research needs reproducible and accurate methods to characterize single EVs. Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) is commonly used to determine EV concentration and diameter. As the EV field is lacking methods to easily confirm and validate NTA data, questioning the reliability of measurements remains highly important. In this regard, a comparison addressing measurement quality between different NTA devices such as Malvern’s NanoSight NS300 or Particle Metrix’ ZetaView has not yet been conducted. To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of size and concentration determinations of both devices, we employed comparative methods including transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and single particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP-IRIS) by ExoView. Multiple test measurements with nanospheres, liposomes and ultracentrifuged EVs from human serum and cell culture supernatant were performed. Additionally, serial dilutions and freeze-thaw cycle-dependent EV decrease were measured to determine the robustness of each system. Strikingly, NanoSight NS300 exhibited a 2.0–2.1-fold overestimation of polystyrene and silica nanosphere concentration. By measuring serial dilutions of EV samples, we demonstrated higher accuracy in concentration determination by ZetaView (% BIAS range: 2.7–8.5) in comparison with NanoSight NS300 (% BIAS range: 32.9–36.8). The concentration measurements by ZetaView were also more precise (% CV range: 0.0–4.7) than measurements by NanoSight NS300 (% CV range: 5.4–10.7). On the contrary, quantitative TEM imaging indicated more accurate EV sizing by NanoSight NS300 (% DTEM range: 79.5–134.3) compared to ZetaView (% DTEM range: 111.8–205.7), while being equally repeatable (NanoSight NS300% CV range: 0.8–6.7; ZetaView: 1.4–7.8). However, both devices failed to report a peak EV diameter below 60 nm compared to TEM and SP-IRIS. Taken together, NTA devices differ strongly in their hardware and software affecting measuring results. ZetaView provided a more accurate and repeatable depiction of EV concentration, whereas NanoSight NS300 supplied size measurements of higher resolution. (hide)
EV-METRIC
66% (99th percentile of all experiments on the same sample type)
 Reported
 Not reported
 Not applicable
EV-enriched proteins
Protein analysis: analysis of three or more EV-enriched proteins
non EV-enriched protein
Protein analysis: assessment of a non-EV-enriched protein
qualitative and quantitative analysis
Particle analysis: implementation of both qualitative and quantitative methods
electron microscopy images
Particle analysis: inclusion of a widefield and close-up electron microscopy image
density gradient
Isolation method: density gradient, at least as validation of results attributed to EVs
EV density
Isolation method: reporting of obtained EV density
ultracentrifugation specifics
Isolation method: reporting of g-forces, duration and rotor type of ultracentrifugation steps
antibody specifics
Protein analysis: antibody clone/reference number and dilution
lysate preparation
Protein analysis: lysis buffer composition
Study data
Sample type
Serum
Sample origin
Control condition
Focus vesicles
extracellular vesicle
Isolation protocol
Isolation protocol
  • Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the
    different steps of the isolation protocol.
    • dUC = differential ultracentrifugation
    • DG = density gradient
    • UF = ultrafiltration
    • SEC = size-exclusion chromatography
dUC
Adj. k-factor
892 (washing)
Protein markers
EV: CD63/ HSP70/ CD9
non-EV: Calnexin
Proteomics
no
Show all info
Study aim
Technical analysis comparing/optimizing EV-related methods
Sample
Species
Homo sapiens
Sample Type
Serum
Sample Condition
Control condition
Isolation Method
Differential ultracentrifugation
dUC: centrifugation steps
Between 800 g and 10,000 g
Between 10,000 g and 50,000 g
Pelleting: time(min)
30
Pelleting: speed (g)
10000
Wash: time (min)
30
Wash: Rotor Type
TLA-55
Wash: speed (g)
10000
Wash: adjusted k-factor
892.0
Characterization: Protein analysis
Protein Concentration Method
BCA
Western Blot
Antibody details provided?
Yes
Lysis buffer provided?
Yes
Detected EV-associated proteins
CD63, HSP70
Not detected contaminants
Calnexin
Characterization: Lipid analysis
Yes
Characterization: Particle analysis
NTA
Report type
Size range/distribution
Reported size (nm)
100-500
EV concentration
Yes
EM
EM-type
Transmission-EM
Image type
Close-up, Wide-field
Report size (nm)
30-500
Other particle analysis name(1)
ExoView
Report type
Size range/distribution
Report size
50-200
EV-concentration
No
Extra information
EV-Track data set is associated with a technical paper comparing different NTA devices assessed by TEM and ExoView
1 - 4 of 4
  • dUC = differential ultracentrifugation
  • DG = density gradient
  • UF = ultrafiltration
  • SEC = size-exclusion chromatography
EV-TRACK ID
EV180021
species
Homo sapiens
sample type
Serum
Cell culture
Cell culture
Serum
cell type
NA
L540
L540
NA
medium
NA
Serum free medium
Serum free medium
NA
condition
Control condition
Control condition
Control condition
Control condition
isolation protocol
dUC
Filtration
dUC
Filtration
dUC
dUC
Exp. nr.
3
4
1
2
EV-METRIC %
77
77
66
66