Comparative analysis of tangential flow filtration and ultracentrifugation, both combined with subsequent size exclusion chromatography, for the isolation of small extracellular vesicles

Abstract

Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) provide major promise for advances in cancer diagnostics, prognostics, and therapeutics, ascribed to their distinctive cargo reflective of pathophysiological status, active involvement in intercellular communication, as well as their ubiquity and stability in bodily fluids. As a result, the field of sEV research has expanded exponentially. Nevertheless, there is a lack of standardisation in methods for sEV isolation from cells grown in serum-containing media. The majority of researchers use serum-containing media for sEV harvest and employ ultracentrifugation as the primary isolation method. Ultracentrifugation is inefficient as it is devoid of the capacity to isolate high sEV yields without contamination of non-sEV materials or disruption of sEV integrity. We comprehensively evaluated a protocol using tangential flow filtration and size exclusion chromatography to isolate sEVs from a variety of human and murine cancer cell lines, including HeLa, MDA-MB-231, EO771 and B16F10. We directly compared the performance of traditional ultracentrifugation and tangential flow filtration methods, that had undergone further purification by size exclusion chromatography, in their capacity to separate sEVs, and rigorously characterised sEV properties using multiple quantification devices, protein analyses and both image and nano-flow cytometry. Ultracentrifugation and tangential flow filtration both enrich consistent sEV populations, with similar size distributions of particles ranging up to 200 nm. However, tangential flow filtration exceeds ultracentrifugation in isolating significantly higher yields of sEVs, making it more suitable for large-scale research applications. Our results demonstrate thatThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

C1q is increased in cerebrospinal fluid‐derived extracellular vesicles in Alzheimer's disease: A multi‐cohort proteomics and immuno‐assay validation study

“…45 UC is the most commonly used gold standard method for EV isolation, whereas the Vn96-peptide-based method is easier, faster, requires smaller sample volumes, and can be performed with standard laboratory equipment. 46,47 However, it only captures the EV subpopulation which carries HSP on its surface. Importantly, although we used two different techniques for EV isolation (UC vs. Vn96-peptide-based affinity purification) and two different proteomic approaches for the quantification of CSF EV proteins (in-solution tryptic digestion/DIA mass spectrometry vs. in-gel tryptic digestion/DDA mass spectrometry), we found that similar biological pathways changed in AD compared to non-demented control groups.…”

Extracellular Vesicles as New Players in Drug Delivery: A Focus on Red Blood Cells-Derived EVs

“…In TFF, the sample moves tangentially across (not directly through) the hollow fiber membrane, which allows smaller molecules to pass while retaining bigger ones. One of the main advantages of using TFF instead of SEC is the higher final concentration of EVs [ 103 , 104 ].…”

Engineered exosomes for tissue regeneration: from biouptake, functionalization and biosafety to applications

“…Depending on the particle size, large molecules are unable to pass through the gel pores and are eluted along the gap between the porous gel and the mobile phase, while small molecules are retained in the gel pores and eventually eluted by the mobile phase. 53,54 This method is fast and easy, but is characterized by a lower total yield of exosomes. In addition, the product may be adulterated with impurities of similar particle size, resulting in a lower exosome purity.…”