EV-TRACK

Search > Results

You searched for: 2017 (Year of publication)

Showing 201 - 250 of 829

Results list

Details	EV-TRACK ID	Experiment nr.	Species	Sample type	Separation protocol	First author	Year	EV-METRIC
	EV220142	1/2	Homo sapiens	MDAMB231	(d)(U)C	Stranford DM	2017	29%
Study summary Full title A Systematic Evaluation of Factors Affecting Extracellular Vesicle Uptake by Breast Cancer Cells. All authors Stranford DM, Hung ME, Gargus ES, Shah RN, Leonard JN Journal Tissue Eng Part A Abstract Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometer-scale particles that are secreted by cells and mediate in (show more...)Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometer-scale particles that are secreted by cells and mediate intercellular communication by transferring biomolecules between cells. Harnessing this mechanism for therapeutic biomolecule delivery represents a promising frontier for regenerative medicine and other clinical applications. One challenge to realizing this goal is that to date, our understanding of which factors affect EV uptake by recipient cells remains incomplete. In this study, we systematically investigated such delivery questions in the context of breast cancer cells, which are one of the most well-studied cell types with respect to EV delivery and therefore comprise a facile model system for this investigation. By displaying various targeting peptides on the EV surface, we observed that although displaying GE11 on EVs modestly increased uptake by MCF-7 cells, neuropeptide Y (NPY) display had no effect on uptake by the same cells. In contrast, neurotensin (NTS) and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) display reduced EV uptake by MDA-MB-231 cells. Interestingly, EV uptake rate did not depend on the source of the EVs/ breast cancer cells demonstrated no increase in uptake on administration of breast cancer-derived EVs in comparison to HEK293FT-derived EVs. Moreover, EV uptake was greatly enhanced by delivery in the presence of polybrene and spinoculation, suggesting that maximal EV uptake rates are much greater than those observed under basal conditions in cell culture. By investigating how the cell's environment might provide cues that impact EV uptake, we also observed that culturing cells on soft matrices significantly enhanced EV uptake, compared to culturing on stiff tissue culture polystyrene. Each of these observations provides insights into the factors impacting EV uptake by breast cancer cells, while also providing a basis of comparison for systematically evaluating and perhaps enhancing EV uptake by various cell types. (hide) EV-METRIC 29% (68th 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 Cell culture supernatant 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 (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation Protein markers EV: None non-EV: None Proteomics no Show all info Study aim Mechanism of uptake/transfer Sample Species Homo sapiens Sample Type Cell culture supernatant EV-producing cells MDAMB231 EV-harvesting Medium Commercial EDS Separation Method (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation 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 performed Yes Pelleting: rotor type SW 41 Ti Pelleting: speed (g) 120,416 Characterization: Protein analysis None Protein Concentration Method BCA Characterization: Lipid analysis No

	EV220142	2/2	Homo sapiens	HEK293FT	(d)(U)C	Stranford DM	2017	29%
Study summary Full title A Systematic Evaluation of Factors Affecting Extracellular Vesicle Uptake by Breast Cancer Cells. All authors Stranford DM, Hung ME, Gargus ES, Shah RN, Leonard JN Journal Tissue Eng Part A Abstract Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometer-scale particles that are secreted by cells and mediate in (show more...)Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometer-scale particles that are secreted by cells and mediate intercellular communication by transferring biomolecules between cells. Harnessing this mechanism for therapeutic biomolecule delivery represents a promising frontier for regenerative medicine and other clinical applications. One challenge to realizing this goal is that to date, our understanding of which factors affect EV uptake by recipient cells remains incomplete. In this study, we systematically investigated such delivery questions in the context of breast cancer cells, which are one of the most well-studied cell types with respect to EV delivery and therefore comprise a facile model system for this investigation. By displaying various targeting peptides on the EV surface, we observed that although displaying GE11 on EVs modestly increased uptake by MCF-7 cells, neuropeptide Y (NPY) display had no effect on uptake by the same cells. In contrast, neurotensin (NTS) and urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) display reduced EV uptake by MDA-MB-231 cells. Interestingly, EV uptake rate did not depend on the source of the EVs/ breast cancer cells demonstrated no increase in uptake on administration of breast cancer-derived EVs in comparison to HEK293FT-derived EVs. Moreover, EV uptake was greatly enhanced by delivery in the presence of polybrene and spinoculation, suggesting that maximal EV uptake rates are much greater than those observed under basal conditions in cell culture. By investigating how the cell's environment might provide cues that impact EV uptake, we also observed that culturing cells on soft matrices significantly enhanced EV uptake, compared to culturing on stiff tissue culture polystyrene. Each of these observations provides insights into the factors impacting EV uptake by breast cancer cells, while also providing a basis of comparison for systematically evaluating and perhaps enhancing EV uptake by various cell types. (hide) EV-METRIC 29% (68th 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 Cell culture supernatant 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 (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation Protein markers EV: None non-EV: None Proteomics no Show all info Study aim Mechanism of uptake/transfer Sample Species Homo sapiens Sample Type Cell culture supernatant EV-producing cells HEK293FT EV-harvesting Medium Commercial EDS Separation Method (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation 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 performed Yes Pelleting: rotor type SW 41 Ti Pelleting: speed (g) 120,416 Characterization: Protein analysis None Protein Concentration Method BCA Characterization: Lipid analysis No

	EV220081	1/2	Homo sapiens	Peritoneal dialysis efflux	(d)(U)C SEC (non-commercial) UF Filtration	Carreras-Planella L	2017	29%
Study summary Full title Characterization and proteomic profile of extracellular vesicles from peritoneal dialysis efflux. All authors Carreras-Planella L, Soler-Majoral J, Rubio-Esteve C, Lozano-Ramos SI, Franquesa M, Bonet J, Troya-Saborido MI, Borràs FE Journal PLoS One Abstract Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) is considered the best option for a cost-effective mid-term dialysis in pat (show more...)Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) is considered the best option for a cost-effective mid-term dialysis in patients with Chronic Renal Failure. However, functional failure of the peritoneal membrane (PM) force many patients to stop PD treatment and start haemodialysis. Currently, PM functionality is monitored by the peritoneal equilibration test, a tedious technique that often show changes when the membrane damage is advanced. As in other pathologies, the identification and characterization of extracellular vesicles (EVs) in the peritoneal dialysis efflux (PDE) may represent a non-invasive alternative to identify biomarkers of membrane failure. Using size-exclusion chromatography, we isolated EVs from PDE in a group of patients. Vesicles were characterized by the presence of tetraspanin markers, nanoparticle tracking analysis profile, cryo-electron microscopy and mass spectrometry. Here, we report the isolation and characterization of PDE-EVs. Based on mass spectrometry, we have found a set of well-conserved proteins among patients. Interestingly, the peptide profile also revealed remarkable changes between newly enrolled and longer-treated PD patients. These results are the first step to the identification of PDE-EVs based new markers of PM damage, which could support clinicians in their decision-making in a non-invasive manner. (hide) EV-METRIC 29% (25th 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 Peritoneal dialysis efflux Sample origin < 10 months on peritoneal dialysis 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 (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation Size-exclusion chromatography (non-commercial) Ultrafiltration Filtration 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 Peritoneal dialysis efflux Separation Method (Differential) (ultra)centrifugation dUC: centrifugation steps Between 800 g and 10,000 g Pelleting performed No Filtration steps 0.22µm or 0.2µm Ultra filtration Cut-off size (kDa) 100 Membrane type Regenerated cellulose Size-exclusion chromatography Total column volume (mL) 12 Sample volume/column (mL) 0.8-2 Characterization: Protein analysis Protein Concentration Method Bradford Flow cytometry aspecific beads Antibody details provided? No Detected EV-associated proteins CD9/ CD63 Flow cytometry specific beads Antibody details provided? Yes Antibody dilution provided? No Proteomics database No Characterization: Lipid analysis No Characterization: Particle analysis NTA EV concentration Yes

				201 - 250 of 829