Author Correction: The impact of circulating preeclampsia-associated extracellular vesicles on the migratory activity and phenotype of THP-1 monocytic cells

Abstract

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has not been fixed in the paper.

Circulating extracellular vesicles in healthy and pathological pregnancies: A scoping review of methodology, rigour and results

“…Pre-eclampsia (PE) is the most studied pathology in the field, and our combined analysis of the 22 studies that compared EV concentrations to normotensive pregnancies, confirmed that PE is usually associated with higher EV levels. However, less than a quarter of the studies (18%; 4/22) reported more than two-fold increase (Kovács et al, 2018a(Kovács et al, , 2018bPillay et al, 2016Pillay et al, , 2020Verma et al, 2018). Additionally, three studies reported a two-fold decrease in EV levels in PE compared to healthy controls in the third trimester (Lok et al, 2008;Lok, Christine et al, 2009;Pillay et al, 2016).…”

“…For many pathologies, fold-changes both >1 and <1 were reported (results summarised in Table S2). Despite PE being widely reported to be associated with increased circulating EVs, this is not always the case, with three studies (Lok et al, 2008, Lok et al, 2009bPillay et al, 2016) reporting a two-fold decrease in EV levels in PE compared to healthy controls in the third trimester, and less than a quarter of the studies (18%; 4/22) reporting more than a two-fold increase (Kovács et al, 2018a(Kovács et al, , 2018bPillay et al, 2016Pillay et al, , 2020Verma et al, 2018).…”

“…One study did not include a healthy pregnant control group (Abolbaghaei et al, 2021). Pathologies included were: pre-eclampsia (PE; n = 27) (Alasztics et al, 2021;Alijotas et al, 2012;Campello et al, 2015;Dragovic et al, 2013;Hu et al, 2018;Jadli et al, 2017;Kovács et al, 2018aKovács et al, , 2018bLalic-Cosic et al, 2021;León et al, 2021;Li et al, 2020;Lok et al, 2007Lok et al, , 2008Lok et al, , 2009bMaduray et al, 2020;Marques et al, 2012;Mikhailova et al, 2014;Murugesan et al, 2022;Pillay et al, 2016Pillay et al, , 2020Textoris et al, 2013;Truong et al, 2017;VanWijk et al, 2002a;Verma et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2020;Weingrill et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2018), small for gestational age/fetal growth restriction/intrauterine growth restriction (SGA/FGR/IUGR; n = 5) (Alijotas et al, 2012;Bretelle et al, 2003;Jadli et al, 2017;Li et al, 2020;Miranda et al, 2018), pre-term birth or premature preterm rupture of membranes (PTB/PPROM; n = 4) (Menon et al, 2020;Menon, Debnath et al, 2019;Tronco et al, 2020;Truong et al, 2017) (Pillay et al, 2020), HIV with or without malaria (n = 1) (Moro et al, 2016) and anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS; n = 1) (Campello et a...…”

“…For the 45 studies that referred to their EV preparations as 'exosomes' , all presented the average sizes as primarily ranging from 30-200 nm, encompassing the size range of not only exosomes, but also other EVs, including microvesicles. 16/19 studies that employed the term 'EV' reported EVs sizing between 30-250 nm (Dragovic et al, 2013;da Cruz et al, 2020;Ezrin et al, 2015;Fallen et al, 2018;Ferrari et al, 2022;Gillet et al, 2019;James-Allan et al, 2020;Kovács et al, 2018aKovács et al, , 2018bLevine et al, 2020;Murugesan et al, 2022;Nair et al, 2021;Nardi et al, 2016;Pan et al, 2022;Thamotharan et al, 2022;Tronco et al, 2020;Zhang et al, 2019) as measured by NTA (n = 12), TEM (n = 3) and DLS (n = 1). The other three studies that used the term 'EV' used FC to quantify and determined that their vesicles were between either 100-500 nm or 100-900 nm in size (Alasztics et al, 2021;Chen et al, 2021a;Clemente et al, 2020).…”

“…Three studies utilised the term 'sEV' to describe their EVs and reported sizes of 100-150 nm (León et al, 2021;Mohammad et al, 2021;Rodrigues et al, 2021). The majority of the studies reported no difference in the size of EVs obtained from the blood of women with pregnancy complications (PE, PTB, FGR, GDM, obesity) compared to healthy pregnancies (Dragovic et al, 2013;Elfeky et al, 2017;James-Allan et al, 2020;Kovács et al, 2018aKovács et al, , 2018bMenon et al, 2020;Miranda et al, 2018;Pillay et al, 2016). Only one study reported significantly larger EVs in their PE cohort (107.5 nm) compared to their healthy pregnant controls (84.9 nm) (Li et al, 2020).…”