| Literature DB >> 32842648 |
Sierra A Walker1, Jesús S Aguilar Díaz De León2, Sara Busatto1, Gregory A Wurtz3, Abba C Zubair4, Chad R Borges2, Joy Wolfram1,5.
Abstract
Blood plasma is a readily accessible source of extracellular vesicles (EVs), i.e., cell-secreted nanosized carriers that contain various biomolecules, includingEntities:
Keywords: carbohydrates; exosomes; glycan node analysis; microvesicle; size exclusion chromatography
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32842648 PMCID: PMC7563425 DOI: 10.3390/cells9091946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Figure 1Schematic of blood content, highlighting plasma components. Components are not drawn to scale.
Figure 2Size and morphology of plasma-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) collected through size exclusion chromatography (SEC). (a) Schematic of expected content in SEC pooled elution fractions (F). F1 and F2 correspond to elution fractions 7–9 and 10–11, respectively. (b–d) Size distribution plots obtained from nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). (e) Representative atomic force microscopy images of fraction 1 (left) and fraction 2 (right) from donor 1. Scale bar, 500 nm.
Figure 3Yield and zeta potential of plasma-derived EVs. (a) Yield for each sample normalized to 1 mL of original plasma determined by NTA. (b) Zeta potential was obtained through laser Doppler micro-electrophoresis. Statistics by Student’s t-test. ** p < 0.0075; ns, not significant.
Figure 4Protein markers of plasma-derived EVs. (a) Protein concentration for each sample normalized to 1 mL of original plasma. (b) Western blot of cluster of differentiation 9 (CD9) (EV marker) and calnexin (contaminant marker). P is plasma. (c) Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for apolipoprotein B (apoB). Data represent mean ± s.d. (n = 3) Statistics by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). * p < 0.025; ** p < 0.004; *** p < 0.0007; ****, p < 0.0001; ns, not significant.
Figure 5Comparison of EV vs. plasma glycan node profiles from three donors. Data represent extracted ion chromatogram (XIC) peak areas for each hexose or N-acetylhexosamine (HexNAc) within each sample that were normalized to the sum of all hexose or HexNAc XIC peak areas for that sample. Glycan nodes that were significantly different with regard to their relative abundance in EVs vs. plasma are summarized in the volcano plots (b,d,f) and depicted as their cartoon representations (defined by the x-axis in each bar graph (a,c,e)). For each glycan node, significant differences were determined by the Student’s t-test without assuming equal variance between groups. To correct for multiple comparisons, the false discovery rate was set at 0.1% according to the two-stage step-up procedure of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli. Data represent mean ± s.d. (n = 8 for EVs and n = 6 for plasma).
Figure 6Comparison of EV glycan node expression across donors. Data represent XIC peak areas for each hexose or HexNAc within each sample, that were normalized to the sum of all hexose or HexNAc XIC peak areas for that sample. For each glycan node, differences between all pairwise combinations of donors were searched for with t-tests, using the two-stage linear step-up procedure of Benjamini, Krieger, and Yekutieli, with Q = 0.1% to correct for false discoveries. No significant differences were observed. Data represent mean ± s.d. (n = 8).
Figure 7Comparison of EV fraction 1 (pooled elution fractions 7-9) and fraction 2 (pooled elution fractions 10–11) from each donor. Comparison of EV glycan nodes between SEC fractions 1 and 2 for each of three different donors (a–c). Data represent XIC peak areas for each hexose or HexNAc within each sample, that were normalized to the sum of all hexose or HexNAc XIC peak areas for that sample. For each glycan node, differences between fractions were searched for with a t-test, using the two-stage linear step-up procedure of Benjamini, Krieger, and Yekutieli, with Q = 0.1% to correct for false discoveries. No significant differences were observed. Data represent mean ± s.d. (n = 4).