Neha Chopra1,2, Braham Dutt Arya3,4, Namrata Jain5, Poonam Yadav1, Saima Wajid2, Surinder P Singh3,4, Sangeeta Choudhury1. 1. Department of Research, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi 110060, India. 2. Department of Biotechnology, Jamia Hamdard, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi 110062, India. 3. CSIR-National Physical Laboratory, Dr. K. S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi 110012, India. 4. Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi 110025, India. 5. Malvern Panalytical Ltd., Enigma Business Park, Malvern WR14 1XZ, U.K.
Abstract
Cell-derived exosomes (30-200 nm) as biological "nanocarriers" have attracted a great deal of interest for therapeutic applications due to their ability to internalize in in vivo biological systems (i.e., cells). Although they can be harvested from various sources including stem cells, yet an appropriate isolation and characterization protocol to obtain "pure" exosomal population is needed. For potential clinical applications, understanding the functional ability of exosomes and their purity, that is, free from microvesicles, apoptotic bodies, and protein aggregates, is a pre-requisite. To achieve high purity and yield of exosomes from human Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hWJ-MSCs) in the size range of 30-200 nm, we have performed and compared three isolation procedures: ultracentrifugation (UC), sucrose cushion (SC), and commercially available reagent (CR). The isolated exosomes were characterized using nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Furthermore, to understand the therapeutic potential of the hWJ-MSC-derived exosomes (hWJ-ME) to target pancreatic tumor cells, the internalization efficacy has been evaluated on the MiaPaCa-2 cell lines using confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. The NTA results showed sucrose cushion to be an optimal method for exosome isolation with high purity (86.8%), as compared to UC (40.5%; p = 0.050) and CR (38%; p = 0.050). Optical analysis by FESEM and AFM revealed that SC-isolated exosomes presented a spherical morphology, whereas UC- and CR-isolated exosomes exhibited an uneven morphology. Furthermore, the data from confocal images and flow cytometry showed that hWJ-ME were internalized by MiaPaCa-2, demonstrating the feasibility of exosomes as a "potential nanocarrier". Thus, our study suggests that a combination of NTA (yield), AFM (dimensions), and FESEM (morphology and topography) could provide sensitive biophysical characterization of hWJ-ME. In the future, enriched exosomes could be used as a delivery vehicle to transport target-specific drugs or gene-silencing constructs to tumors.
Cell-derived exosomes (30-200 nm) as biological "nanocarriers" have attracted a great deal of interest for therapeutic applications due to their ability to internalize in in vivo biological systems (i.e., cells). Although they can be harvested from various sources including stem cells, yet an appropriate isolation and characterization protocol to obtain "pure" exosomal population is needed. For potential clinical applications, understanding the functional ability of exosomes and their purity, that is, free from microvesicles, apoptotic bodies, and protein aggregates, is a pre-requisite. To achieve high purity and yield of exosomes from human Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hWJ-MSCs) in the size range of 30-200 nm, we have performed and compared three isolation procedures: ultracentrifugation (UC), sucrose cushion (SC), and commercially available reagent (CR). The isolated exosomes were characterized using nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Furthermore, to understand the therapeutic potential of the hWJ-MSC-derived exosomes (hWJ-ME) to target pancreatic tumor cells, the internalization efficacy has been evaluated on the MiaPaCa-2 cell lines using confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. The NTA results showed sucrose cushion to be an optimal method for exosome isolation with high purity (86.8%), as compared to UC (40.5%; p = 0.050) and CR (38%; p = 0.050). Optical analysis by FESEM and AFM revealed that SC-isolated exosomes presented a spherical morphology, whereas UC- and CR-isolated exosomes exhibited an uneven morphology. Furthermore, the data from confocal images and flow cytometry showed that hWJ-ME were internalized by MiaPaCa-2, demonstrating the feasibility of exosomes as a "potential nanocarrier". Thus, our study suggests that a combination of NTA (yield), AFM (dimensions), and FESEM (morphology and topography) could provide sensitive biophysical characterization of hWJ-ME. In the future, enriched exosomes could be used as a delivery vehicle to transport target-specific drugs or gene-silencing constructs to tumors.
Intercellular communication
relies on basic biochemical cues that
are essential for mechanistic action of various biological processes
in the cell. Cross-talk among the cells through the microenvironment
is vital for the survival, proliferation, and regulation of inter-
and intra-cellular processes. The cellular microenvironment is highly
complex consisting of hormones, cytokines, growth factors, extracellular
matrix, cellular vesicles, and many more.[1] Among these, cell-derived vesicles are an important constituent
of the cellular microenvironment, playing a crucial role in intracellular
communication and trafficking.[2]Cell-derived
extracellular vesicles (EVs) such as exosomes, microvesicles,
and apoptotic bodies have been subcategorized based on their size
and composition, as shown in Figure . Exosomes, originating from endocytic compartments
of biological cells, inherit cell (parent)-specific proteins, which
could be harvested for developing novel therapeutic modalities.[3] Exosomes are made up of lipid bilayers, which
consist of RNA and functional miRNA that could be used in targeted
therapies.[4] Apart from their nanoscale
size (30–200 nm), exosomes have the advantage of not only being
able to activate the host immune system due to its highly immunogenic
surface receptors but are also less toxic to the host, compared to
their bioengineered counterparts, that is, nanoparticles such as liposomes.[5,6] These bio-nanoparticles exhibit clinical potential both in diagnostics
as a predictive biomarker, and in therapeutics as a drug delivery
vehicle.[7] More recently, cell-derived exosomes
used as delivery vehicles have shown promising results in cancer treatment,
as compared to conventional (chemotherapy) and somatic adult stem
cell therapies.[8−10]
Figure 1
Schematic representation of origin, composition, and size
range
of extracellular vesicles (EVs): exosomes, microvesicles, and apoptotic
bodies. All mammalian cells secrete extracellular vesicles, exosomes
(30–200 nm), microvesicles (50–1000 nm), and apoptotic
bodies (>1000 nm) in the cell microenvironment. The contents of
exosomes
are tetraspanins, mRNA/RNA/scRNA, chaperons, lipids, and cytoskeleton,
many of which are found in microvesicles (i.e., tetraspanins, RNA,
chaperons, lipids, and cytoskeleton proteins). Apoptotic bodies consist
of DNA, histones, and cell organelles.
Schematic representation of origin, composition, and size
range
of extracellular vesicles (EVs): exosomes, microvesicles, and apoptotic
bodies. All mammalian cells secrete extracellular vesicles, exosomes
(30–200 nm), microvesicles (50–1000 nm), and apoptotic
bodies (>1000 nm) in the cell microenvironment. The contents of
exosomes
are tetraspanins, mRNA/RNA/scRNA, chaperons, lipids, and cytoskeleton,
many of which are found in microvesicles (i.e., tetraspanins, RNA,
chaperons, lipids, and cytoskeleton proteins). Apoptotic bodies consist
of DNA, histones, and cell organelles.In recent years, stem cell-derived exosomes have been reported
to be efficient drug delivery vehicles, owing to their homing capabilities
toward inflammation sites.[11,12] Mesenchymal stem cells
(MSCs), isolated from umbilical cord and adipose tissue, are being
extensively studied as an alternative to embryonic stem cells. The
varied sources of MSC have shown differential effects on tumor progression,[13−16] which implies that the parent source of exosomes is an important
factor to be considered for development of therapeutic interventions
since their functional/biological properties largely rely on its origin.
Recent evidence has also suggested inhibitory effects of MSCs on cancer
cells through suppression of immune response and induction of apoptosis.[17,18] Sources such as bone marrow (BM) and adipose tissue are donor-dependent,
invasive procedures; thus, environmental factors such as usage of
drugs during the lifetime and age may influence the quality, viability,
and characteristics of these MSCs. Therefore, there is a need to identify
a source of MSCs, which can provide exosomes that can be harvested
efficiently and can be scaled up for mass production. Among the different
sources, Wharton’s jelly-derived MSCs (WJ-MSCs) are comparatively
less studied but can be an ideal source for a large quantity of MSCs.[19] The isolation of WJ-MSCs from naïve umbilical
cord tissues has minimal ethical concerns being a non-invasive technique
with minimal risk to the donor and further can be scaled up in vitro
for mass production of the cells and exosomes. Moreover, WJ-MSCs have
shown a better myogenic potential, engraftment properties, unaltered
chromosomal changes (karyotyping), low immunogenicity, and higher
proliferative capabilities when compared to other sources.[20,21]Although exosomes have exhibited novel and improved opportunities
in diagnostics and treatment modalities of cancer and other complex
diseases, their isolation protocols and characterization are still
ambiguous.[22]In the present study,
we aim to standardize the protocol for efficient
isolation of hWJ-ME through biophysical characterization using nanoparticle
tracking analysis (NTA), field emission scanning electron microscopy
(FESEM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Three different isolation
methods, that is, ultracentrifugation (UC), sucrose cushion (SC),
and total exosome isolation commercial reagent (CR), have been used
and compared on this basis. The results indicate that SC is more efficient
compared to commonly used UC. In addition, these exosomes were shown
to successfully internalize into the MiaPaCa-2 cell line. Thus, showing
that, hWJ-MSC-derived exosomes could be a valuable drug delivery vehicle
or “nanocarrier” with a putative role in cancer and
other human diseases.
Results
Characterization
of hWJ-MSCs
We characterized
the hWJ-MSCs that were cryopreserved from three independent adult
donors (18–35 years old) (Figure A). Their osteocytic and adipocytic differential
potentials were verified by staining with Alizarin S and Oil red (Figure B). The analysis
of hWJ-MSCs was performed using flow cytometry to evaluate the expression
of surface markers as per ISCT (International Society for Cellular
Therapy) guidelines. The results showed positive expression of CD105
(83 ± 1.3%), CD90 (95.7 ± 1.4%), CD73 (95.5 ± 1.3%),
and CD44 (93.7 ± 1.25%) and a negative expression for CD34 (3.2
± 1.1%), CD14 (2.6 ± 1.3%), HLA-DR (1.7 ± 1.3%), and
CD19 (3.5 ± 1.2%) (Figure C,D). The MSCs were karyotyped to assess chromosomal integrity
(Figure E). All results
confirmed that the MSCs had phenotypic and multilineage capacity as
per the guidelines.
Figure 2
Characterization of hWJ-MSCs. (A) Morphology of hWJ-MSCSs
revived
from a cryopreserved vial, (B) differentiation potential, (C) representative
graphs of flow cytometric analysis (CD105, CD73, CD90, CD44, CD34,
CD19, CD14, and HLA-DR), (D) expression of MSC surface markers, and
(E) karyotyping.
Characterization of hWJ-MSCs. (A) Morphology of hWJ-MSCSs
revived
from a cryopreserved vial, (B) differentiation potential, (C) representative
graphs of flow cytometric analysis (CD105, CD73, CD90, CD44, CD34,
CD19, CD14, and HLA-DR), (D) expression of MSC surface markers, and
(E) karyotyping.
Comparative
Evaluation of Exosomes Purified
from Three Different Isolation Methods Using Nanoparticle Tracking
Analysis
Exosomes from human Wharton’s jelly-derived
MSCs were purified using UC, SC, and CR. Evaluation of the size and
concentration of exosomes obtained from all three isolation methods
was done using NTA and is shown in Figure . Figure A shows the exosomal size and concentration observed
in NTA analysis for the three isolation methods (UC, SC, and CR) represented
in 3D and 2D graphics, and Figure B represents their comparative distribution cumulatively.
A heterogeneous population of vesicle particulate with broad size
variation (multiple peaks) was observed in UC-exosomal isolate, as
revealed by the distinct peaks shown in Figure A1. The presence of a single peak (30–200
nm) as shown in Figure A2 presented a homogeneous and narrow sized distribution of exosomes
in the SC method. The CR method showed multiple narrow peaks, ranging
from 30−300 nm as compared to UC method (Figure A3). The data shown in Figure A has been summarized in Table , representing their total concentration,
mean size, and detection threshold values.
Figure 3
(A) Representative graphs
(in 3D and 2D) of hWJ-MSC-derived exosomes
(0–1000 nm) separated by ultracentrifugation (UC), sucrose
cushion (SC), and commercial reagent (CR) methods using nanoparticle
tracking analysis (NTA) and (B) cumulative size distribution profiles
of UC, SC, and CR.
Table 1
Total Concentration,
Mean, and Detection
Threshold of Particles within the 0–1000 nm Size Range Identified
Using the NTA 3.3 Software
0–1000 nm
UC
SC
CR
concentration (particles/mL)
1.36 × 109
0.8 × 109
0.28 × 109
mean size (nm)
220.2
170.9
186.8
detection threshold
5
5
5
(A) Representative graphs
(in 3D and 2D) of hWJ-MSC-derived exosomes
(0–1000 nm) separated by ultracentrifugation (UC), sucrose
cushion (SC), and commercial reagent (CR) methods using nanoparticle
tracking analysis (NTA) and (B) cumulative size distribution profiles
of UC, SC, and CR.Table shows the
pure exosome population in a size cutoff range of 30–200 nm
obtained from NTA using the NTAv3.3 software. The three methods, that
is, SC, CR, and UC, revealed 86.8 ± 8.2% (0.65 × 109 particles/mL), 37.8 ± 7.1% (0.22 × 109 particles/mL), and 40.5 ± 2.6% (0.52 × 109 particles/mL)
exosomes (concentration), respectively, within the specified size
range of 30–200 nm. The percentage of exosomes isolated by
each method is further represented in a pie chart as shown in Figure .
Table 2
Comparison
of Concentration and Percentage
of Exosomes (30–200 nm Size) Obtained among the Three Methods
(UC, SC, and CR)
30–200 nm
UC
SC
CR
concentration (particles/mL)
0.52 × 109
0.65 × 109
0.22 × 109
no. of exosomes (in %)
40.5 ± 2.6
86.8 ± 8.2
37.8 ± 7.1
Figure 4
Pie chart representing
number of exosomes (30–200 nm) purified
from the total yield of UC, SG, and CR isolation methods using the
NTA 3.3 software.
Pie chart representing
number of exosomes (30–200 nm) purified
from the total yield of UC, SG, and CR isolation methods using the
NTA 3.3 software.The exosomes isolated from three isolation techniques were quantified
using NTA. The sucrose cushion method yielded 45%, commercial reagent
yielded 31%, and ultracentrifugation yielded 28% of exosomes in the
size range of 30–200 nm.
Identification
of Exosomal Population Using
CD9
To validate the biological origin of exosomes, it is
imperative to ascertain the presence of specific biomolecules (i.e.,
tetraspanins), which are responsible for functional activities related
to migration, fusion, and signaling. A study has reported tetraspanins
such as CD9, CD63, and CD81 present on endocytic membranes as exosomal
biomarkers.[26] A recent report has suggested
that CD9 present on the exosomal surface plays a major role in intercellular
communication via its fusion with the host cell membrane.[27] This could be used as a marker for identification
of exosomes within a mixture of extracellular vesicles. In the present
study, CD9 has been used to examine the purity of exosomes isolated
from the three methodologies, that is, UC, SC, and CR, using NTA.
CD9 was labeled with the fluorophore BV510, which was detected in
real time under the light scattering mode using a 532 nm filter.Figure represents
the fluorescence of BV510-labeled anti-CD9 bound to the hWJ-ME surface
of the 30–200 nm size range. The exosomes isolated using UC
represented 26.4% of the total, presenting peaks at 37 and 105 nm
(Figure A). CR showed
68.8% CD9 positivity, presenting multiple signals at 34, 98, and 152
nm (Figure C), whereas
the SC method showed a 100% CD9 expression at 30 and 90 nm only (Figure B).
Figure 5
Expression of CD9 using
fluorescence NTA in exosomes isolated from
(A) ultracentrifugation, (B) sucrose cushion, and (C) commercial reagent.
Expression of CD9 using
fluorescence NTA in exosomes isolated from
(A) ultracentrifugation, (B) sucrose cushion, and (C) commercial reagent.
Field Emission Scanning
Electron Microscopy
and Atomic Force Microscopy
The morphological aspects of
hWJ-ME were investigated using FESEM and AFM. Figure revealed FESEM images of hWJ-ME obtained
from UC (Figure a,b),
SC (Figure c,d), and
CR (Figure e,f) at
different scales. The appearance of nearly spherical vesicles (∼30–80
nm diameter) without a central deformation, isolated using UC, SC,
and CR, respectively, has been corroborated by Sharma et al.[28] The difference in exosomal size obtained using
NTA (30–200 nm) and FESEM (30-80 nm) is attributed to the fact
that NTA measures the hydrodynamic size in the solution unlike the
defined boundary structure analysis as by FESEM.[29]Figure d (a higher magnification image) reveals that the SC method shows
a narrower size distribution of isolated exosomes, which is akin to
the NTA observations (Figure ).
Figure 6
FESEM images of hWJ-ME derived from (a, b) UC, (c, d) SC, and (e,
f) CR methods at different magnifications.
FESEM images of hWJ-ME derived from (a, b) UC, (c, d) SC, and (e,
f) CR methods at different magnifications.Furthermore, the three-dimensional structure and subvesicular organization
of purified hWJ-ME were analyzed using atomic force microscopy in
tapping mode.[30]Figure shows the morphology of hWJ-ME purified
using UC, SC, and CR methods. The appearance of hWJ-ME of varying
sizes in Figures a
and 7c corresponds to the presence of different
sizes of hWJ-ME purified from UC and CR, respectively. On the other
hand, Figure b shows
a narrow size distribution of hWJ-ME purified using SC. These observations
are corroborated by FESEM and NTA analysis. Furthermore, to investigate
the size distribution and homogeneous nature of the hWJ-ME purified
from the SC method and subvesicular organization of a single isolated
vesicle, we have analyzed their morphology by scanning a larger area
(3 μm) at 200 nm magnification. Figure d reveals fairly homogeneous and nearly spherical
hWJ-ME purified by SC with a narrow size distribution of 30–80
nm without any apparent intervesicular fusion or aggregation. Furthermore, Figure e,f depicts the morphology
of a single hWJ-ME isolated by SC.
Figure 7
Morphological and substructural organization
of hWJ-ME isolated
by UC, SC, and CR using atomic force microscopy. (a–c) Morphology
of hWJ-ME derived from UC, SC, and CR, respectively. (d) Narrow size
distribution (30–80 nm) of the hWJ-ME purified by SC without
apparent intervesicular fusion over a 3 μm area scan. (e, f)
Substructural organization of a single hWJ-ME isolated using SC.
Morphological and substructural organization
of hWJ-ME isolated
by UC, SC, and CR using atomic force microscopy. (a–c) Morphology
of hWJ-ME derived from UC, SC, and CR, respectively. (d) Narrow size
distribution (30–80 nm) of the hWJ-ME purified by SC without
apparent intervesicular fusion over a 3 μm area scan. (e, f)
Substructural organization of a single hWJ-ME isolated using SC.(A) Migration of hWJ-MSC exosomes (PKH26-stained) to the
nucleus
(DAPI-stained) of MiaPaCa-2 cells observed by confocal microscopy.
(B) Intracellular uptake of CFSE-labeled hWJ-ME by MiaPaCa-2 cells.
(i) Unstained tumor cells (ii) MSC-tumor co-culture, and (iii) CFSE-labeled
MSCs.
Internalization
of hWJ-ME in MiaPaCa-2 Cells
MSCs have shown therapeutic
potential and hold large opportunities
in the future.[31] Apart from stem cell therapies,
stem cell-derived exosomes are being considered as prospective candidates
for cancer treatment. It is thus important to understand their interaction
with different tumor types. For this reason, we have performed co-culture
experiments using PKH26-labeled exosomes seeded on MiaPaCa-2 cells
and observed using confocal microscopy (Figure A). It was observed that PKH26-labeled exosomes
(562 nm) surrounded the nucleus (DAPI-stained) of MiaPaCa-2 cells.
Figure 8
(A) Migration of hWJ-MSC exosomes (PKH26-stained) to the
nucleus
(DAPI-stained) of MiaPaCa-2 cells observed by confocal microscopy.
(B) Intracellular uptake of CFSE-labeled hWJ-ME by MiaPaCa-2 cells.
(i) Unstained tumor cells (ii) MSC-tumor co-culture, and (iii) CFSE-labeled
MSCs.
Furthermore, to understand the migration/transfer of exosomes from
MSCs to the surrounding cells (pancreatic tumor cells), unlabeled
MiaPaCa-2 cells were co-cultured with MSCs labeled with the intracellular
dye CFSE (FITC) and incubated for 48 h. The transfer of CFSE-labeled
hWJ-ME was studied using flow cytometry. A shift in the fluorescence
(FITC) showed that dye transfer took place from the labeled MSC cells
to unlabeled MiaPaCa-2 cells (Figure B). Since CFSE is an intracellular dye, a passive transfer
of dye seems unlikely. The result indicates that exosomes released
from the CFSE-MSCs may have transfected the tumor cells, thereby generating
an FITC signal. This experiment demonstrates the capacity of MSCs
or their derivatives (exosomes) to target the pancreatic tumor cells,
probably via MSC exosomal interactions.
Discussion
Extracellular vesicles in the size range of 30–200 nm, classified
as exosomes, have exhibited immense potential in therapeutic and diagnostic
applications. Earlier reports about the potential functions of EVs
have not been conclusive; however, with extensive progress, it is
being observed that exosomes are far more complex than originally
thought.[32] The multifunctionality of exosomes
is attributed to their size, content, and representation of the parent
cell. Although exosomes have many potential applications, a standardized
protocol for their isolation and characterization is still lacking.In the present study, we have attempted to identify an efficient
exosome isolation method of hWJ-MSCs using three different techniques,
that is, UC, SC, and CR. Literature reports UC as the most common
isolation technique, but high-speed centrifugation results in loss
of viable exosomes and other constituents of EVs.[33,34] Isolation of exosomes using CR is limited due to high costs related
to its implementation in mass production and poor purification performance,
allowing the presence of contaminants such as proteins and polymeric
materials.[35] To overcome these limitations,
addition of a sucrose cushion during ultracentrifugation can segregate
the EVs based on their flotation densities, size, and prevent the
cell membrane rupture resulting from high centrifugal forces.[36] To optimize the isolation efficacy of hWJ-ME,
UC and SC methods were compared with CR on the basis of size and morphology
obtained by NTA, FESEM, and AFM. Our findings based on concentration,
yield (NTA), and morphology (FESEM and AFM) suggest sucrose cushion
as a high-efficiency extraction method to isolate hWJ-ME. Although
transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is considered a gold standard
for characterizing the morphology of exosomes, we show here that the
combined use of FESEM and AFM is a viable characterization approach.[35] In addition, the sample preparation procedure
in TEM leads to dehydration of the exosomal membrane, which results
in a cup-shaped morphology (flattened spheres). In contrast, using
FESEM and AFM allows exosomes to retain their spherical morphology
and hydration while being imaged. FESEM imaging revealed that SC-isolated
exosomes (30–80 nm) have a round and uniform morphology with
unimodal distribution. AFM results revealed homogeneous spherical
hWJ-MEs without any apparent intervesicular fusion or aggregation
using SC. These spherical vesicles showed a round bulging morphology
with an intense core region that may correspond to the presence of
proteins and mRNA.[29] On the other hand,
cell fractions obtained from UC and CR showed the presence of other
EV constituents, representing a heterogeneous size population.NTA technology offers relatively faster acquisition of size and
concentration of exosomes while providing a real-time visualization
than other methodologies such as dynamic light scattering (DLS) and
flow cytometry. Since the technique captures the scattering light
and particles under Brownian motion, it is easy to derive the polydispersity
information of the sample. Additionally, NTA provides the hydrodynamic
size of unaltered vesicles and does not require any harsh sample preparation
that can change the morphology of the exosomes. The recent advances
in flow cytometry permit analysis of particles sized <30 nm,[37] but the technology cannot accurately quantify
exosomes as the quantification is based on the reference beads, thus
reducing its sensitivity. The capacity of NTA to predict the size
and concentration of extracellular vesicles and their subtypes (exosomes)
could be exploited to a greater extent by quantifying the differential
concentration in normal and diseased/inflammatory conditions.Exosomes carry specific markers from their parent cell and thus
could possess properties similar to their source. These markers could
become a double-edged sword as they could be used both for diagnostics
and therapeutic purposes.[38−40] Current methodologies, such as
Western blotting and flow cytometry, for identification of exosomes
are cumbersome and ambiguous. Several reports have shown characterization
of exosomes by immunophenotyping (CD63/CD81/CD9), with surface marker
expression pattern being less than 50%.[27,28] Such low expression levels could be related
to the fact that the exosomal yield from the standard isolation protocols
consist of particles that are outside the exosomal size range (as
per our data). The presence of exosomal surface biomarkers provides
an edge to characterize them according to their size distribution
using fluorescent NTA technology, which may prove to be an ideal and
real-time alternative to current techniques, allowing ease in operation
and analysis.[41,42] In the present study, the CD9-labeled
exosomes were investigated using fluorescent NTA, and the expression
pattern was based on size and concentration alone. It was observed
that exosomes isolated using SC highly expressed the CD9 protein.
This supports our results using FESEM and AFM, showing hWJ-ME enrichment.Furthermore, the cellular uptake and internalization of hWJ-ME
by pancreatic cancer cell line MiaPaCa-2 confirmed the therapeutic
potential of hWJ-ME to target cancer cells; however, more detailed
studies are required to establish this. From a therapeutic standpoint,
MSCs are one of the most promising candidates for exosome production.[43] Exosomes derived from MSCs have the capability
of immune modulation, and their ability to migrate to the inflammatory
site makes them desirable for therapeutic application.In addition,
MSC-derived exosomes possess the intracellular communication
ability. MSC exosomes can act as a nanocargo to transfer diverse components
such as DNA/RNA/miRNA/siRNA and drugs.[44,45] Furthermore,
the changes in the membrane composition of MSC exosomes due to the
activation/inactivation status of the cell results in differential
functional abilities, altering the cellular pathway of the recipient
cells.[46] Thus, hWJ-ME can be used as potential
nanovehicles to deliver biomolecules such as miRNA/siRNA and chemodrugs.
Munoz et al.[46] also showed that functional
anti-miR9 could be delivered by MSC exosomes to confer chemosensitivity
to glioblastoma multiforme cells (U87 and T98G cells), suggesting
that exosomes act via the gap junctional intercellular communication.
Pascucci et al.[47] showed the antitumorigenic
efficacy of chemotherapeutic drug (i.e., paclitaxel) release in pancreatic
cancer cell line CFPAC-1 by MSC exosomes. Similarly, in the present
study, the internalization of CFSE-labeled hWJ-ME in MiaPaCa-2tumor
cells demonstrates the capability of hWJ-ME to interact with the tumor
cells. Detailed studies are still required to explore the real potential
of exosomes in cancer therapeutics.
Conclusions
We have successfully isolated viable exosomes with increased yield
and homogeneity from hWJ-MSCs. NTA results showed SC to be the best
method for exosome isolation with high purity (86.8%) as compared
to UC (40.5%; p = 0.050) and CR (38%; p = 0.050). Furthermore, high levels of CD9 expression of hWJ-ME isolated
through SC confirm the exosomal purity. It is evident from our study
that a combinational approach of NTA, FESEM, and AFM can efficiently
quantify and evaluate the size and morphology of exosomes. Furthermore,
the flow cytometric analysis of hWJ-MSCs labeled with CFSE (intracellular
dye) has shown internalization of exosomes into pancreatic tumor cells
and suggesting functional ability of hWJ-ME to invade the tumor cells,
as seen by confocal imaging. Thus, hWJ-ME show a great potential as
nanocarriers to target tumor cells with high efficiency to deliver
biomolecules such as miRNA/siRNA and chemodrugs.
Methodology
Human Wharton’s Jelly-Derived Mesenchymal
Stem Cells
Subculturing of Human Wharton’s Jelly-Derived
Mesenchymal Stem Cells (hWJ-MSCs)
MSCs were isolated from
Wharton’s jelly of the umbilical cord after obtaining ethical
clearance (reference no. ICSCR/14/3) and consent from healthy pregnant
women undergoing normal child delivery. MSCs from three independent
donors were collected, characterized, and cryopreserved.The
cryopreserved vials of hWJ-MSCs [passage 4 (P4)] were revived and
expanded (P5). The cells were grown as monolayers in Dulbecco’s
modified Eagle’s medium–low glucose (DMEM-LG, Thermo
Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) media supplemented with 20% fetal
bovine serum (FBS, Biological Industries, Cromwell, CT, USA), 3% MEM
Vitamins (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), 3% MEM NEAA (Sigma-Aldrich,
St. Louis, MO, USA), 3% GlutaMAX (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA),
and 1% antibiotic–antimycotic (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO,
USA) solution and maintained in a 37 °C and 5% CO2 incubator. These MSCs were characterized for their differentiation
capabilities (osteocytes and adipocytes) and surface markers (CD105+/CD90+/CD73+/CD45–/CD19–/HLA-DR–) (BD Biosciences,
San Jose, CS, USA) as per International Society for Cellular Therapy
(ISCT) guidelines.[48]
Collection of Conditioned Media
Cells were grown up
to 70% confluency and washed once with Dulbecco’s
phosphate buffer saline (DPBS; pH 7.0; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham,
MA, USA) followed by rinsing with DMEM-LG without FBS. The media was
replaced by DMEM devoid of FBS, and cultures were grown for 48 h at
37 °C and 5% CO2. After 48 h, the medium was collected,
hereafter referred to as conditioned medium (CM). The CM was pooled
from 3xT-175 flasks and centrifuged at 300g for 5
min followed by 2000g for 30 min at room temperature
(RT). Supernatant was filtered through a 0.22 μm membrane and
stored at 4 °C for use within a week and/or stored at −80
°C for future experiments. A total of three independent patient-derived
MSCs were used for collection of CM.
Exosome
Isolation and Purification
We used three different isolation
protocols to purify exosomes derived
from hWJ-MSCs. All the methods were repeated independently in triplicates.
Ultracentrifugation Method (UC)
We have isolated hWJ-ME
using a slightly modified protocol of Pospichalova
et al.[49] Briefly, 15 mL of pooled CM (as
described in Section ) was sequentially centrifuged at 10,000g for 30 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was again centrifuged at
100,000g for 90 min at 4 °C. The pellet obtained
was resuspended in 0.22 μm filtered DPBS and again centrifuged
at 100,000g for 90 min at 4 °C. The resulting
pellet (exosomes) was resuspended in 200 μL of filtered DPBS,
aliquoted, and stored at −80 °C for further experimentations;
the same has been schematized in Figure a.
Figure 9
Schematic representation of exosome isolation
methods: (a) ultracentrifugation,
(b) sucrose gradient, and (c) commercial reagent.
Schematic representation of exosome isolation
methods: (a) ultracentrifugation,
(b) sucrose gradient, and (c) commercial reagent.
Sucrose Cushion Method (SC)
Figure b summarizes the
protocol for isolating exosomes using sucrose that was adapted from
Gupta et al.,[50] with slight modifications.
Briefly, CM was sequentially centrifuged at 10,000g for 30 min and 100,000g for 90 min and washed with
DPBS at 100,000g for 90 min at 4 °C. The resuspended
exosomes were layered on 1 mL of 30% sucrose solution and centrifuged
at 100,000g for 90 min. The purified exosomes were
collected from the sucrose-DPBS interphase and washed again with DPBS
for 90 min at 100,000g. The resulting pellet was
resuspended in 200 μL of DPBS, aliquoted, and stored at −80
°C for further experimentations.
Commercial
Reagent (CR)
In addition
to the previous methods, a commercially available total exosome isolation
reagent (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used as
per the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, 1:2 ratio (reagent/CM)
was thoroughly mixed by pipetting and vortexing. This mixture was
incubated at 4 °C overnight (i.e., 16 h) in a rotor shaker. After
16 h, the mixture was centrifuged at 10,000g for
60 min at 4 °C. The pellet obtained (exosomes) was resuspended
in 200 μL of filtered DPBS, aliquoted, and stored at −80
°C for further experimentations, as depicted in Figure c.
Characterization of Exosomes
Nanoparticle
Tracking Analysis (NTA)
The concentration and size distribution
of exosomes were determined
by nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) in a NanoSight (Malvern Instruments
Ltd., Malvern, U.K.) NS300 system equipped with a high-sensitivity
CMOS camera and a 405/532 nm laser. Diluted (1000-fold) fractions
from each isolation method were acquired, and a 60 s video was recorded.
Analysis was performed using the NTA 3.3 software (Malvern Instruments
Ltd., Malvern, U.K.).
Enumeration of Fluorescence-Labeled
Exosomes
Using NTA
Exosomes were labeled with 1:100 diluted CD9-BV510
(mouse anti-human; BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA) for 60 min at
room temperature and vortexed intermittently. The labeled exosomes
were then diluted (1:1000) in deionized water and acquired using the
NanoSight. The camera level was maintained at 12 for the light scatter
mode and 16 for the fluorescence scatter mode between samples. Videos
of typically 60 s duration were taken, with a frame rate of about
30 frames/s. Analysis was performed using the NTA 3.3 software.
Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)
The
size, shape, and morphology of purified exosomes were investigated
using atomic force microscopy (AFM, Veeco-V) employing tapping mode.
Briefly, all three exosomes samples (UC, SC, and CR) were diluted
(1:1000) in filtered DPBS and spin-coated onto the surface of a freshly
cleaved silicon substrate. For preparation of each measurand, 20 μL
of the diluted exosome sample was mounted onto a silicon substrate
and spin-coated at 1500 rpm for 30 s. The images were analyzed using
the NanoScope 7.20 (Build R1.30937) software.
Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy
(FESEM)
The morphology of purified exosomes was further analyzed
employing a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM, Zeiss,
model Supra 40VP). Briefly, exosomes were resuspended and diluted
in 1 mL of filtered DPBS (1:1000), and 20 μL of the diluted
sample was coated on a silicon substrate using a spin coater (1500
rpm for 30 s) and mounted on an SEM stub for analysis.
Uptake of Labeled Exosomes by Tumor Cells
in Vitro
Fluorescent Labeling of Exosomes Using PKH-26
Prior to labeling of the exosomes, 4 μL of PKH26 dye (PKH26
Red Fluorescent Cell Linker Kit for General Cell Membrane Labeling,
Sigma) was diluted in 1000 μL of diluent C to a final concentration
of 4 μM. Briefly, 5 × 107 purified exosomes
were resuspended in 1 mL of diluent C, mixed with 1 mL of diluted
PKH26 (4 μM), and incubated for 4 min at 37 °C. The reaction
was stopped by adding DMEM + 10% FBS and centrifuged at 100,000g for 90 min. To remove the unbound dye, the pellets (exosomes)
were again washed and centrifuged at 100,000g for
90 min.
Carboxyfluorescein Succinimidyl Ester Labeling
of hWJ-MSCs
Briefly, 1 × 106 MSCs were washed
with DPBS and centrifuged at 400g for 5 min at RT.
The pellet was resuspended in 1 mL of DPBS and incubated with 5 μM
(10 mM stock in DMSO) of carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester (CFSE)
at 37 °C for 45 min. After the incubation, DPBS (9 mL) was added
to the cells and centrifuged at 400g for 5 min at
RT. The pellet obtained was washed, counted (trypan blue), and resuspended
in an appropriate volume of DMEM + 10% FBS media as per need of further
experiment.
Co-culture of Labeled
Exosomes and Unlabeled
Pancreatic Tumor Cells
To observe the exosomal internalization
into MiaPaCa-2 cells (pancreatic cancer cell line; purchased from
National Center for Cell Science, Pune, India), hWJ-ME labeled with
PKH26 (as described in Section ) were overlaid on MiaPaCa-2 cells. Briefly, 3 ×
104 MiaPaCa-2 cells were seeded on coverslips in a 24-well
plate overnight at 37 °C and 5% CO2. The labeled exosomes
(PKH26) were overlaid on the growing MiaPaCa-2 cells and analyzed
using confocal microscopy (LEICA TCS SP5 II) after 48 h of incubation.
Dye Transfer Assay
CFSE-labeled
MSCs (as described in Section ) were co-cultured with unlabeled MiaPaCa-2 cells to
decipher the mechanism of exosome transfer. Briefly, 3 × 105 CFSE-labeled MSCs were co-cultured with 3 × 105 unlabeled MiaPaCa-2 cells and incubated for 48 h at 37 °C and
5% CO2 in a 12-well plate. The co-cultured and individual
cells (CFSE-MSCs and unlabeled MiaPaCa-2 cells) were acquired using
flow cytometry (FACSAria III, BD Biosciences) and analyzed using the
FACSDiva software v6.2.
Statistical
Analysis
Exosomes are
reported in the unit of diameters (nanometers). Further, the diameters
are represented as mean ± standard deviation. The statistical
difference between the three different methods was calculated using
the Kruskal–Wallis test, and further paired comparisons were
performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Authors: Brooke A Brown; Xuyao Zeng; Aaron R Todd; Lauren F Barnes; Jonathan M A Winstone; Jonathan C Trinidad; Milos V Novotny; Martin F Jarrold; David E Clemmer Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Brooke A Brown; Poornachander R Guda; Xuyao Zeng; Adam Anthony; Andrew Couse; Lauren F Barnes; Edie M Sharon; Jonathan C Trinidad; Chandan K Sen; Martin F Jarrold; Subhadip Ghatak; David E Clemmer Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 8.008