| Literature DB >> 28255367 |
Pin Li1, Melisa Kaslan2, Sze Han Lee3, Justin Yao3, Zhiqiang Gao2.
Abstract
Exosomes are one type of membrane vesicles secreted into extracellular space by most types of cells. In addition to performing many biological functions particularly in cell-cell communication, cumulative evidence has suggested that several biological entities in exosomes like proteins and microRNAs are closely associated with the pathogenesis of most human malignancies and they may serve as invaluable biomarkers for disease diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. This provides a commanding impetus and growing demands for simple, efficient, and affordable techniques to isolate exosomes. Capitalizing on the physicochemical and biochemical properties of exosomes, a number of techniques have been developed for the isolation of exosomes. This article summarizes the advances in exosome isolation techniques with an emphasis on their isolation mechanism, performance, challenges, and prospects. We hope that this article will provide an overview of exosome isolation techniques, opening up new perspectives towards the development more innovative strategies and devices for more time saving, cost effective, and efficient isolations of exosomes from a wide range of biological matrices.Entities:
Keywords: Exosome; isolation
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28255367 PMCID: PMC5327650 DOI: 10.7150/thno.18133
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
Figure 1(A) An electron microscopic image of exosomes (Reproduced with permission from reference 8) and (B) a diagrammatic representation of a medium size exosome (Reproduced with permission from Reference 10).
Figure 2Schematic representation of isolating exosomes by differential ultracentrifugation. All centrifugations are carried out at 4⁰C.
Figure 3Schematic illustration of sequential filtration. Firstly, cells and cell debris are removed. Secondly, free protein is filtered out and the sample is concentrated. Finally, extracellular vesicles larger than 100 nm is removed. (Reproduced with permission from reference 60)
Figure 4Schematic representation of F4. Sample components experience two opposite forces: crossflow field and diffusion. Parabolic flow and equilibrium positions of sample components are illustrated. (Reproduced with permission from reference 65)
Figure 5Schematic depiction of the acoustic nanofilter (left). Acoustic radiation transported microvesicles to nodes. Larger ones move faster and are removed by sheath flow at the node region, while smaller ones are retained by the center flow. Smaller (green) and larger (red) fluorescent particles exit to the center and the side outlets, respectively (Right). (Reproduced with permission from reference 85)
Figure 6Ciliated nanowire-on-micropillar. Before getting into the micropillars, cells are removed. The nanowires trap exosomes. (a) ciliated nanowires + (b) micropillars = (c) ciliated nanowire-on-micropillars. (Reproduced with permission from reference 87).
Figure 7Experimental strategy using ExoChip. (A) Serum is flowed through a CD63-Ab coated ExoChip. The captured exosomes are stained with membrane specific dye (DiO). (B) Fluorescently stained exosomes are measured using a microplate reader and exosomal contents are analyzed using Western blot for protein and RT-PCR or a microarray for RNA. (Reproduced with permission from reference 89)
Figure 8Integrated microfluidic exosome analysis. (A) Chip with microchannel and (B) workflow: immunomagnetic isolation, chemical lysis and intravesicular protein analysis. #1-4 are the inlets for exosome capture beads, washing/lysis buffer, protein capture beads, and ELISA reagents, respectively. (Reproduced with permission from reference 90)
Comparison of exosome isolation techniques.
| Isolation | Isolation principle | Potential Advantage | Potential Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Density, size, and shape based sequential separations of particulate constituents and solutes | Reduced cost and contamination risks with separation reagents, Large sample capacity and yields large amounts of exosomes | High equipment cost, cumbersome,, long run time, and labor intensive low portability - not available at point-of-care, high speed centrifugation may damage exosomes thus impeding downstream analysis.95 | |
| Exosome isolation is exclusively based on the size difference between exosomes and other particulate constituents | Ultrafiltration: Fast, does not require special equipment, good portability, direct RNA extraction possible. | Ultrafiltration: low equipment cost, moderate purity of isolated exosomes, shear stress induced deterioration, possibility of clogging and vesicle trapping, exosomes loss due to attaching to the membranes. | |
| Altering the solubility or dispersibility or exosomes by the use of water-excluding polymers | Easy to use, does not require specialized equipment, large and scalable sample capacity | Co-precipitation of other non-exosomal contaminants like proteins and polymeric materials. Long run time, Requires pre-and post-cleanup. | |
| Exosome fishing based on specific interaction between membrane-bound antigens (receptors) of exosomes and immobilized antibodies (ligands) | Excellent for the isolation of specific exosomes, Highly purified exosomes - much better than those isolated by other techniques, high possibility of subtyping. | High reagent cost, exosome tags need to be established, low capacity and low yields, only works with cell-free samples, tumor heterogeneity hampers immune recognition, antigenic epitope may be blocked or masked.54 | |
| Microscale isolation based on a variety of properties of exosomes like immunoaffinity, size, and density. | Fast, low cost, portable, easy automation and integration, high portability. | Lack of standardization and large scale tests on clinical samples, lack of method validation, moderate to low sample capacity. |