Exosomes, a subtype of extracellular vesicles secreted by mammalian cells with a typical size range of 30–150 nm, have been implicated in many biological processes as intercellular communication carriers. The isolation of exosomes is an essential and challenging step before subsequent analysis and functional studies, due to the complexity of body fluids, as well as the small size and low density of exosomes. Ultracentrifugation (UC) and size exclusion chromatography (SEC) are two methods that have been extensively used for exosomes isolation in biological studies in recent years. In this work, we compared the characteristics of urinary exosomes extracted with SEC and UC methods in detail. Results showed that the SEC isolation method was superior to UC in the recovery of exosomal particles and proteins. The results of proteomics analysis showed that more purified exosomes were extracted with the SEC method. We also observed that parts of exosomes were ruptured and precipitated insufficiently during UC isolations. It not only led to a low recovery of exosome proteins but also resulted in a considerable loss of exosomal particles. Moreover, the exosomal rupture and particle loss in UC could not be avoided by resuspension of the exosomal particles. Our results also showed that exosomes from SEC purifications possessed a high internalization capability from 4 to 6 h when incubated with EA.hy926 and HCV29 cell lines.
The increasing aging of the world population is accompanied by a rise in the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). There has been a growing interest in shockwave treatment for orthopedic diseases, including KOA. In previous trials, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) was compared to physical therapy or placebo in the treatment of KOA. However, the efficacy and safety of ESWT for KOA remains disputed. The present meta-analysis assessed the effects of ESWT in KOA. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Research Gate and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies involving ESWT for patients with KOA. The outcome indicators included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, range of motion (ROM), the Lequesne index (LI) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). In the comparison of the ESWT vs. placebo groups, the primary outcomes included the VAS score and ROM, while the LI was the secondary outcome. In the comparison of the ESWT vs. physical therapy groups, the primary outcomes included the pain score and ROM, while the secondary outcome was the WOMAC index. Relevant data were analyzed using RevMan v5.3. The ESWT group had a lower VAS core, larger ROM and a better LI than the placebo group after 1 month of therapy (P<0.05). Furthermore, at 1 month post-therapy, the ESWT group had a lower VAS score, larger ROM and a better WOMAC than the physical therapy group (P<0.05). The outcomes regarding pain, ROM, LI and WOMAC were significantly different between the two different groups (P<0.05). The present meta-analysis suggested that ESWT may achieve a better therapeutic effect for patients with KOA as compared to physical therapy. However, high-quality trials with large sample sizes are essential to substantiate these results.
Background: D'Amico high-risk prostate cancer (Pca) patients experience poor and heterogeneous oncological outcomes. This heterogeneity highlights a need to extensively explore factors associated with poor outcomes to guide decision-making. Objective: To assess predictors of biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival in high-risk patients following radical prostatectomy (RP), and subsequently establish a model predicting outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively identified D'Amico high-risk non-metastatic Pca patients who underwent RP between 2013 and 2019 in our hospital. We collected data including PSA level, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score (GS), number of D'Amico high-risk factors (RF), the inflammatory status (Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], derived NLR [dNLR], platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR] and LDH). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to analyze BCR-free survival. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate the association between clinicopathological parameters and BCR-free survival. Results: The median follow-up time for the 101 patients' cohort was 26 months (range: 3-81 months). The number of RF (1RF vs. ≥2RF), biopsy GS (<8 vs. ≥8), clinical stage (≤cT2c vs. >cT2c), pathological stage, and the presence of adverse pathological features were significant predictors of BCR (P < 0.05). Other parameters including inflammatory status (dNLR, NLR, PLR, and LDH) were not of predictive value. On multivariable analysis, biopsy GS (<8 vs. ≥8; HR 2.439) and clinical stage (≤cT2c vs. >cT2c; HR 3.271) were the independent predictors of BCR. Based on these two independent predictors, patients were stratified into three risk subgroups: favorable (0 risk factor; 47% of patients), intermediate (1 risk factor; 42 %), unfavorable (2 risk factors; 11%). The intermediate and unfavorable subgroups have a significantly shorter median BCR-free survival compared to the favorable subgroup (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Several factors are associated with BCR. Clinical stage (≤cT2c vs. >cT2c) and biopsy GS (<8 vs. ≥8) are the independent predictors of BCR. The stratification of high-risk patients into risk subgroups based on these two predictors shows that the intermediate and unfavorable subgroups have a significantly shorter median BCR-free Nkengurutse et al. BCR-Free Survival in High-Risk Pca survival compared to the favorable subgroup. The preoperative stratification model may help urologists and patients during decision-making. In non-metastatic high-risk patients, preoperative inflammatory markers (NLR, dNLR, PLR, and LDH) are not of prognostic value.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.