Techniques to improve detection and analysis of extracellular vesicles using flow cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) range in size from 50 nm to 1 µm. Flow cytometry (FCM) is the most commonly used method for analyzing EVs; however, accurate characterization of EVs remains challenging due to their small size and lack of discrete positive populations. Here we report the use of optimization techniques that are especially well-suited for analyzing EVs from a high volume of clinical samples. Utilizing a two pronged approach that included 1) pre-filtration of antibodies to remove aggregates, followed by 2) detergent lysis of a replicate sample to account for remaining false positive events, we were able to effectively limit false positive non-EV events. In addition, we show that lysed samples are a useful alternative to isotypes for setting gates to exclude background fluorescence. To reduce background, we developed an approach using filters to "wash" samples post-staining thus providing a faster alternative to ultracentrifugation and sucrose gradient fractionation. In conclusion, use of these optimized techniques enhances the accuracy and efficiency of EV detection using FCM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".