| Literature DB >> 32801874 |
Ruili Jiao1,2, Shipeng Sun3, Xiaoqiong Gao1, Ran Cui1, Guangming Cao1, Huali Wei4, Shuzhen Wang1, Zhenyu Zhang1, Huimin Bai1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study tried to evaluate whether 8% polyethylene glycol (PEG) 6000 precipitation combined with differential ultracentrifugation (PPDU) was an efficient and practical method for the enrichment and purification of extracellular vesicles (EVs) derived from the culture supernatant of human ovarian cancer cell line A2780 and from body fluids of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC).Entities:
Keywords: EVs; HGSC; PEG6000 precipitation; body fluids; cell culture supernatant
Year: 2020 PMID: 32801874 PMCID: PMC7386806 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S228288
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Flow chart for the EVs purification procedure based on 8% PEG6000 precipitation combined with differential ultracentrifugation (PPDU). The first stage is differential centrifugation. After each of the first three centrifugations, pellets (cells, dead cells, cell debris) are discarded. The second stage is PEG precipitation. The supernatant of previous procedure is kept for blending well with 8% PEG6000 over night. When washed by PBS, it goes to the next procedure. The third stage is super-centrifugation. In contrast, after the 110,000×g centrifugations, Precipitated pellets (EVs + contaminant proteins+ PEG) are kept, and supernatants are discarded. After PBS was fully mixed again, the vesicle particles containing small EVs were obtained by another round of ultra-centrifugation.
Note: All centrifugation steps were conducted at 4°C.
The Clinicopathological Characteristics of These Patients with HGSC
| Patient | Age at Initial Diagnosis | Initial FIGO Stage | Primary/Recurrent | Method Used to Obtain the Specimens of Ascites | CA125 IU/mL | LNM | Status at the Last Contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 53 | II a | Primary | Laparoscope | 11 | − | AWD |
| 2 | 46 | IV | Recurrent | Abdominal puncture | 2248.3 | + | DOD |
| 3 | 61 | IV | Recurrent | Abdominal puncture | 468.4 | + | DOD |
| 4 | 48 | IIIc | Recurrent | Abdominal puncture | 190.5 | + | DOD |
| 5 | 54 | II b | Primary | Laparoscope | 131.3 | − | DOD |
| 6 | 60 | II c | Primary | Open-abdominal surgery | 6124.8 | − | AWD |
| 7 | 65 | IIIc | Primary | Open-abdominal surgery | 19.6 | − | AWD |
| 8 | 58 | IV | Primary | Open-abdominal surgery | 69.9 | − | AWD |
| 9 | 53 | IV | Primary | Open-abdominal surgery | 344.7 | + | AWD |
| 10 | 59 | IIIc | Primary | Open-abdominal surgery | 1240.4 | + | AWD |
Abbreviations: HGSC, high-grade serous carcinoma; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; DOD, die of disease; AWD, alive with disease; LNM, Lymph node metastasis.
Figure 2(A) TEM images of EVs derived from cell culture supernatant of A-H/A-L and body fluids of HGSC patients and control group. The sizes of the EVs ranged from 30 to 260 nm. The EVs evenly distributed in the field of vision. Structure of bilayer lipid membranes and typical “cup-shape” morphologies. (B) Sizes and size distributions of EVs as analyzed by NTA. EVs of A-H (A2780 Subclones with high invasive capacity) and A-L (A2780 Subclones with low invasive capacity) derived from cell culture supernatant 1000mL respectively; EVs of OA (Ascites of patients with HGSC) and CA (Ascites or peritoneal lavage fluids of control group) derived from patients’ ascites or peritoneal lavage fluids 200mL respectively; EVs of OP (Plasm of patients with HGSC) and CP (Plasm of control group) derived from patients’ plasm 5mL respectively. The mean sizes and peak sizes of EVs derived from different specimens were not significantly different (all P>0.05). (C) Among all the samples of EVs identified by WB, CD9, CD63 and Alix were positively expressed, Calnexin was negatively expressed. (D) Comparison of protein content of EVs from OP/CP/OA/CA by BCA. ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001.
The P value of Mean Size and Peak Size of EVs Derived from the Culture Supernatant of A-H/A-L and Body Fluids of Patients with HGSC and Control Group by NTA
| NTA (nm) Mean Size | P value | NTA (nm) Peak Size | P value | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| vs A-H | vs A-L | vs OA | vs OP | vs CA | vs A-H | vs A-L | vs OA | vs OP | vs CA | |||
| 102.7±31 | 107.2±31 | |||||||||||
| 132.1±43 | 0.218 | 114.6±43 | 0.524 | |||||||||
| 109.±24 | 0.422 | 0.502 | 100.1±30 | 0.974 | 0.540 | |||||||
| 96.7± 30 | 0.923 | 0.265 | 0.513 | 128.6±19 | 0.105 | 0.487 | 0.109 | |||||
| 106.0±14 | 0.640 | 0.447 | 0.834 | 0.717 | 115.2±22 | 0.512 | 0.869 | 0.532 | 0.194 | |||
| 112.9±34 | 0.479 | 0.544 | 0.991 | 0.557 | 0.844 | 128±20 | 0.152 | 0.550 | 0.158 | 0.941 | 0.292 | |
The Results of Different Identification Methods of EVs Derived from the Culture Supernatant of A-H/A-L and Body Fluids of Patients with HGSC and Control Group
| Catalog Number | A-H | A-L | OA | OP | CA | CP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | 53±22 | 65±20 | 88±19 | 55±27 | 80±21 | 59±17 |
| | 109.3±30.9 | 120.5±34.2 | 103.9.±30.1 | 139.5± 68.5 | 139.5±43.1 | 132.1±34.2 |
| | 107.2±30.9 | 114.6±43 | 100.1±30.1 | 128.6±19.2 | 115.2±21.9 | 128±19.8 |
| | 0.32±0.01542 | 0.27±0.01012 | 2.9781±0.9616 | 0.7018±0.03891 | 0.4501±0.0435 | 0.1163±0.0172 |
Abbreviations: A-H, subclones with high invasive capacity of A2780 cell line; A-L, subclones with low invasive capacity of A2780 cell line; OA, ascites of HGSC; OP, plasm of HGSC; CA, ascites of control group; CP, plasm of control group.
Quality Evaluation of A-H/A-L EVs Protein by Mass Spectrometry
| Sample | Concentration (μg/μL) | Volume (μL) | Total Protein (μg) | Glue Chart Integrity | Is There Peak Degree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.36 | 300 | 108.02 | Well | No | |
| 0.20 | 300 | 61.44 | Well | No | |
| 17.92 | 500 | 8958.99 | Well | No |
Figure 3ITGαV, ITGβ1 and ITGβ3 were positively expressed in WB of EVs derived from A-H/A-L/OA/OP/CA/CP. The expression of ITGαV, ITGβ1 and ITGβ3 in the EVs of plasma and ascites from patients with HGSC was significantly upregulated, compared to the control group (A–F). In addition, the expression of ITGαV and ITGβ1 in EVs derived from HGSC patients’ ascites was significantly higher than that derived from plasma (G and H).There was no significant difference in the expression of ITGβ3 in ascites and plasma of HGSC patients (I). **P < 0.01; ****P < 0.0001.