Diverse subpopulations of vesicles secreted by different intracellular mechanisms are present in exosome preparations obtained by differential ultracentrifugation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exosomes are extracellular vesicles of 50 to 100 nm in diameter, released by many cell types. Exosomes are formed inside the cell in intracellular endosomal compartments and are secreted upon fusion of these compartments with the plasma membrane. Cells also secrete other types of membrane vesicles, for instance, by outward budding from the plasma membrane, and although some of them clearly differ from exosomes by their structural features (larger size), others are possibly more difficult to separate. Here, using Rab27a inhibition to modulate exosome secretion, we show the existence of at least 2 distinct populations of vesicles after purification by classical ultracentrifugation from mouse tumor cell conditioned medium. Rab27a inhibition lead to decreased vesicular secretion of some conventional markers of exosomes (CD63, Tsg101, Alix and Hsc70) but did not affect secretion of others (CD9 and Mfge8). By electron microscopy, CD9 was observed on vesicles of various sizes, ranging from 30 nm to more than 150 nm in diameter. Flotation onto sucrose gradients showed different proportions of CD63, CD9 and Mfge8 not only in fractions of densities classically described for exosomes (around 1.15 g/ml) but also in fractions of densities over 1.20 g/ml, indicating the presence of heterogenous vesicle populations. CD9 and Mfge8 were also found in large vesicles pelleted at low speed and can thus not be considered as specific components of endosome-derived vesicles. We propose that the most commonly used protocols for exosome preparations co-purify vesicles from endosomal and other origins, possibly the plasma membrane. Future work will be required to improve techniques for accurate purification and characterization of the different populations of extracellular vesicles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".