EV-TRACK

Search > Results

You searched for: EV180054 (EV-TRACK ID)

Showing 1 - 2 of 2

Results list Study Tree

Details	EV-TRACK ID	Experiment nr.	Species	Sample type	Separation protocol	First author	Year	EV-METRIC
	EV180054	1/2	Homo sapiens	Urine	(d)(U)C SEC UF	Lozano-Ramos SI	2017	14%
Study summary Full title Molecular profile of urine extracellular vesicles from normo-functional kidneys reveal minimal differences between living and deceased donors. All authors Lozano-Ramos SI, Bancu I, Carreras-Planella L, Monguió-Tortajada M, Cañas L, Juega J, Bonet J, Armengol MP, Lauzurica R, Borràs FE Journal BMC Nephrol Abstract BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best therapeutic approach for chronic kidney disease (show more...)BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best therapeutic approach for chronic kidney diseases leading to irreversible kidney failure. Considering the origin of the graft, several studies have reported differences between living (LD) and deceased donors (DD) in graft and patient survival. These differences seem to be related to multiple factors including, donor age and time of cold ischemia among others. Many of transplanted organs come from old-aged DDs, in which pre-transplant biopsy is recommended. However, kidney biopsy has several limitations, and there is a need to develop alternatives to assess the status of a kidney before transplantation. As the analysis of urinary extracellular vesicles (uEVs) rendered promising results as non-invasive biomarkers of kidney-related pathologies, this pilot study aimed to investigate whether profiling uEVs of LDs and DDs may be of help to assess the quality of the kidney before nephrectomy. METHODS: uEVs from 5 living donors and 7 deceased donors were isolated by size-exclusion chromatography, and their protein and miRNA content were analysed by liquid chromatography followed by mass spectrometry and next generation sequencing, respectively. Then, hierarchical clustering and venn diagrams were done with Perseus software and InteractiVenn tool. Specific EVs data bases were also used for Gene Ontology analysis. RESULTS: Next generation sequencing revealed that uEVs from DDs contained less miRNAs than LDs, but most of the DD-expressed miRNAs were shared with LDs (96%). Only miR-326 (targeting the apoptotic-related Bcl2) was found significantly over-represented in LD. Focusing on the protein content, we detected a low intra-group correlation in both types of donors. Despite these differences, hierarchical clustering of either miRNA or protein data could not identify a differential profile between LDs and DDs. Of note, 90% of transplanted patients had a functional graft after a year from KTx. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study we found that, in normo-functional grafts, minor differences in uEVs profile could not discriminate between LDs and DDs. (hide) EV-METRIC 14% (40th 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. For the quantitative method, the reporting of measured EV concentration is expected. electron microscopy images Particle analysis: inclusion of a widefield and close-up electron microscopy image density gradient Separation method: density gradient, at least as validation of results attributed to EVs EV density Separation method: reporting of obtained EV density ultracentrifugation specifics Separation 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 Urine Sample origin Deceased Focus vesicles extracellular vesicle Separation protocol Separation protocol Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the different steps of the separation protocol. dUC = (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation DG = density gradient UF = ultrafiltration SEC = size-exclusion chromatography IAF = immuno-affinity capture (d)(U)C SEC UF Protein markers EV: CD63/ CD9 non-EV: None Proteomics yes Show all info Study aim Biomarker, Identification of content (omics approaches) Sample Species Homo sapiens Sample Type Urine Separation Method (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation dUC: centrifugation steps Between 10,000 g and 50,000 g Pelleting performed No Ultra filtration Cut-off size (kDa) 100 Membrane type Not specified Size-exclusion chromatography Total column volume (mL) 12 Sample volume/column (mL) 0.3 Resin type Sepharose CL-2B Characterization: Protein analysis Protein Concentration Method Nanodrop Proteomics database No Characterization: RNA analysis Database No Proteinase treatment No RNAse treatment No Characterization: Lipid analysis No Characterization: Particle analysis NTA Report type Size range/distribution Reported size (nm) 124-250 EV concentration Yes

	EV180054	2/2	Homo sapiens	Urine	(d)(U)C SEC UF	Lozano-Ramos SI	2017	14%
Study summary Full title Molecular profile of urine extracellular vesicles from normo-functional kidneys reveal minimal differences between living and deceased donors. All authors Lozano-Ramos SI, Bancu I, Carreras-Planella L, Monguió-Tortajada M, Cañas L, Juega J, Bonet J, Armengol MP, Lauzurica R, Borràs FE Journal BMC Nephrol Abstract BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best therapeutic approach for chronic kidney disease (show more...)BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best therapeutic approach for chronic kidney diseases leading to irreversible kidney failure. Considering the origin of the graft, several studies have reported differences between living (LD) and deceased donors (DD) in graft and patient survival. These differences seem to be related to multiple factors including, donor age and time of cold ischemia among others. Many of transplanted organs come from old-aged DDs, in which pre-transplant biopsy is recommended. However, kidney biopsy has several limitations, and there is a need to develop alternatives to assess the status of a kidney before transplantation. As the analysis of urinary extracellular vesicles (uEVs) rendered promising results as non-invasive biomarkers of kidney-related pathologies, this pilot study aimed to investigate whether profiling uEVs of LDs and DDs may be of help to assess the quality of the kidney before nephrectomy. METHODS: uEVs from 5 living donors and 7 deceased donors were isolated by size-exclusion chromatography, and their protein and miRNA content were analysed by liquid chromatography followed by mass spectrometry and next generation sequencing, respectively. Then, hierarchical clustering and venn diagrams were done with Perseus software and InteractiVenn tool. Specific EVs data bases were also used for Gene Ontology analysis. RESULTS: Next generation sequencing revealed that uEVs from DDs contained less miRNAs than LDs, but most of the DD-expressed miRNAs were shared with LDs (96%). Only miR-326 (targeting the apoptotic-related Bcl2) was found significantly over-represented in LD. Focusing on the protein content, we detected a low intra-group correlation in both types of donors. Despite these differences, hierarchical clustering of either miRNA or protein data could not identify a differential profile between LDs and DDs. Of note, 90% of transplanted patients had a functional graft after a year from KTx. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study we found that, in normo-functional grafts, minor differences in uEVs profile could not discriminate between LDs and DDs. (hide) EV-METRIC 14% (40th 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. For the quantitative method, the reporting of measured EV concentration is expected. electron microscopy images Particle analysis: inclusion of a widefield and close-up electron microscopy image density gradient Separation method: density gradient, at least as validation of results attributed to EVs EV density Separation method: reporting of obtained EV density ultracentrifugation specifics Separation 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 Urine Sample origin Control condition Focus vesicles extracellular vesicle Separation protocol Separation protocol Gives a short, non-chronological overview of the different steps of the separation protocol. dUC = (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation DG = density gradient UF = ultrafiltration SEC = size-exclusion chromatography IAF = immuno-affinity capture (d)(U)C SEC UF Protein markers EV: CD63/ CD9 non-EV: None Proteomics yes Show all info Study aim Biomarker, Identification of content (omics approaches) Sample Species Homo sapiens Sample Type Urine Separation Method (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation dUC: centrifugation steps Between 10,000 g and 50,000 g Pelleting performed No Ultra filtration Cut-off size (kDa) 100 Membrane type Not specified Size-exclusion chromatography Total column volume (mL) 12 Sample volume/column (mL) 0.3 Resin type Sepharose CL-2B Characterization: Protein analysis Protein Concentration Method Nanodrop Proteomics database No Characterization: RNA analysis Database No Proteinase treatment No RNAse treatment No Characterization: Lipid analysis No Characterization: Particle analysis NTA Report type Size range/distribution Reported size (nm) 124-250 EV concentration Yes

				1 - 2 of 2

EV-TRACK ID	EV180054
species	Homo sapiens
sample type	Urine
condition	Deceased	Control condition
separation protocol	(d)(U)C SEC UF	(d)(U)C SEC UF
Exp. nr.	1	2
EV-METRIC %	14	14