Effect of Sample Preprocessing and Size-Based Extraction Methods on the Physical and Molecular Profiles of Extracellular Vesicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanometric lipid vesicles that shuttle cargo between cells. Their analysis could shed light on health and disease conditions, but EVs must first be preserved, extracted, and often preconcentrated. Here we first compare plasma preservation agents, and second, using both plasma and cell supernatant, four EV extraction methods, including (i) ultracentrifugation (UC), (ii) size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), (iii) centrifugal filtration (LoDF), and (iv) accousto-sorting (AcS). We benchmarked them by characterizing the integrity, size distribution, concentration, purity, and expression profiles for nine proteins of EVs, as well as the overall throughput, time-to-result, and cost. We found that the difference between ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and citrate anticoagulants varies with the extraction method. In our hands, ultracentrifugation produced a high yield of EVs with low contamination; SEC is low-cost, fast, and easy to implement, but the purity of EVs is lower; LoDF and AcS are both compatible with process automation, small volume requirement, and rapid processing times. When using plasma, LoDF was susceptible to clogging and sample contamination, while AcS featured high purity but a lower yield of extraction. Analysis of protein profiles suggests that the extraction methods extract different subpopulations of EVs. Our study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of sample preprocessing methods, and the variability in concentration, purity, and EV expression profiles of the extracted EVs. Preanalytical parameters such as collection or preprocessing protocols must be considered as part of the entire process in order to address EV diversity and their use as clinically actionable indicators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".