An automated on-line isolation and fractionation system including controlling software was developed for selected nanosized biomacromolecules from human plasma by on-line coupled immunoaffinity chromatography-asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (IAC-AsFlFFF). The on-line system was versatile, only different monoclonal antibodies, anti-apolipoprotein B-100, anti-CD9, or anti-CD61, were immobilized on monolithic disk columns for isolation of lipoproteins and extracellular vesicles (EVs). The platelet-derived CD61-positive EVs and CD9-positive EVs, isolated by IAC, were further fractionated by AsFlFFF to their size-based subpopulations (e.g., exomeres and exosomes) for further analysis. Field-emission scanning electron microscopy elucidated the morphology of the subpopulations, and 20 free amino acids and glucose in EV subpopulations were identified and quantified in the ng/mL range using hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HILIC-MS/MS). The study revealed that there were significant differences between EV origin and size-based subpopulations. The on-line coupled IAC-AsFlFFF system was successfully programmed for reliable execution of 10 sequential isolation and fractionation cycles (37-80 min per cycle) with minimal operator involvement, minimal sample losses, and contamination. The relative standard deviations (RSD) between the cycles for human plasma samples were 0.84-6.6%.
An automated on-line isolation and fractionation system including controlling software was developed for selected nanosized biomacromolecules from human plasma by on-line coupled immunoaffinity chromatography-asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation (IAC-AsFlFFF). The on-line system was versatile, only different monoclonal antibodies, anti-apolipoprotein B-100, anti-CD9, or anti-CD61, were immobilized on monolithic disk columns for isolation of lipoproteins and extracellular vesicles (EVs). The platelet-derived CD61-positive EVs and CD9-positive EVs, isolated by IAC, were further fractionated by AsFlFFF to their size-based subpopulations (e.g., exomeres and exosomes) for further analysis. Field-emission scanning electron microscopy elucidated the morphology of the subpopulations, and 20 free amino acids and glucose in EV subpopulations were identified and quantified in the ng/mL range using hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HILIC-MS/MS). The study revealed that there were significant differences between EV origin and size-based subpopulations. The on-line coupled IAC-AsFlFFF system was successfully programmed for reliable execution of 10 sequential isolation and fractionation cycles (37-80 min per cycle) with minimal operator involvement, minimal sample losses, and contamination. The relative standard deviations (RSD) between the cycles for human plasma samples were 0.84-6.6%.
Human biomacromolecules
are
complex and structurally diverse. They are excellent biomarkers, needed
for the recognition and detection of the early stages of diseases,
to understand the pathogenesis of the disease, and to find the treatment
solutions. Their fast and reliable isolation and purification are
often challenging or even a bottleneck for their diagnostic and therapeutic
applications.[1] The challenges are caused
by their stability requirements and unique nature, especially when
isolated from human biofluids. New systems are needed to eliminate
the problems, such as operator dependent errors,[2] aggregation,[3,4] oxidation, shear and mechanical
stress, and contamination,[5] present in
the current methods and techniques, which are often also tedious and
time consuming.The study of subpopulations of lipoproteins
and extracellular vesicles
(EVs) has proven to be important for detection of different diseases[6,7] (e.g., small dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are considered
unfavorable for health[8,9]), or for finding a new extracellular
vesicle subpopulation called exomere,[10] whose effects on health are still unclear. EV is a general term
that includes both ectosomal and endosomal EVs (exosomes). Their size
and other biophysical characteristics are similar, and thus EVs and
exosomes cannot be separated based on size or density alone.[11] Therefore specific immunobased separation techniques
are needed for future clinical diagnostic and therapeutic applications
of exosomes,[6,11,12] and especially the study of subpopulations of EVs has lately attracted
great attention.[6,10,13]Selective and high yield isolation of nanosized biomacromolecules
(e.g., lipoproteins and EVs) from human biofluids, such as plasma,
is a challenging task due to the complex nature of sample matrices.
Immunoaffinity chromatography (IAC) with polymer-based monolithic
columns has proven to be a valuable tool for selective isolation of
these biomacromolecules.[13,14] However, the need for
the clarification of characteristics of heterogeneous subpopulations,
and for the deep understanding of their effects on human health, calls
for further fractionation and analysis. Asymmetrical flow field-flow
fractionation (AsFlFFF) combined with light-scattering detectors has
already demonstrated its importance in off-line fractionation of biomacromolecules,[15,16] lipoproteins,[3] and EVs by helping to
shed light on the nature of their subpopulations.[10,13] Furthermore, the on-line coupling of different techniques has offered
extra advantages, such as ease of automation and high reproducibility,
usually resulting in a short analysis time.[2]In this work, a novel automated on-line isolation and fractionation
IAC-AsFlFFF system was constructed for the isolation and fractionation
of EVs, exosomes, exomeres, and apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100) containing
lipoproteins from challenging human plasma. The system was equipped
with multiple detectors, such as ultraviolet, multiangle light-scattering,
dynamic light-scattering, and diode array detectors (UV, MALS, DLS,
and DAD) to provide more information on the chemical and physical
characteristics of biomacromolecules. Field-emission scanning electron
microscopy (FESEM) gave morphology information of the fractionated
EV subpopulations. Their surface charge was revealed by ζ potential
measurements. The free amino acid and glucose composition of the isolated
EV subpopulations was elucidated by hydrophilic interaction liquid
chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (HILIC-MS/MS), and
these results were subjected to statistical analysis for obtaining
extra information on EV subpopulations.
Experimental Section
Chemicals
and Reagents
The details are given in the Supporting Information.
Instrumentation
The details are given in the Supporting Information.
Preparation of Solutions
Phosphate buffered saline
(PBS) solution was prepared by dissolving a PBS tablet in 200 mL of
MilliQ (MQ) water and filtered through a 0.2 μm membrane filter
(Supor-200). Carbonate-bicarbonate solution (0.1 M, pH 11.3) was prepared
by mixing Na2CO3 solution (90 mL of 0.1 M) with
NaHCO3 solution (10 mL, 0.1 M). The pH of the solution
was adjusted to 11.3 with 1 M NaOH. NH4OH (0.15 M, pH 11.5)
was prepared by diluting with 1.13 mL of 25% ammonia solution to a
final volume of 50 mL with MQwater. The HILIC-MS/MS mobile phase
A was prepared by adding 1 mL of formic acid to acetonitrile (999
mL) and the mobile phase B was prepared by adding 1 mL of formic acid
to MQwater (999 mL). All standards and internal standards were prepared
in mobile phase B.
On-Line IAC-AsFlFFF System
An on-line
IAC-AsFlFFF system
is depicted in Figure . In addition to a monolithic disk column and AsFlFFF, the system
was composed of: (i) an in-house built pump with a 5 mL glass syringe
driven by a stepping motor and a three-port valve with an electrical
actuator for dispensing the solutions, (ii) a Cheminert C25Z-31814D
(Vici AG, Schenkon, Switzerland) 14 position stream selection valve
connected to an EMHMA-CE microelectric valve actuator (Vici AG, Schenkon,
Switzerland) for selection of samples and eluents, and (iii) a six-port
medium pressure injection valve V-451 (IDEX Upchurch Scientific, Oak
Harbor, WA) connected to a Model E60 actuator (Vici AG, Schenkon,
Switzerland) for the introduction of the sample to AsFlFFF. The setup
was controlled by a Raspberry Pi (Model B Rev. 2.0) single board computer
running on in-house written Python scripts on Raspbian (ver.joo ot
9 Stretch) operating system.
Figure 1
Automated on-line system for the isolation of
nanosized biomacromolecules.
The system consisted of a selection valve for controlling the isolation
process (A), a monolithic column for IAC (B), an automated six port
valve for injection to AsFlFFF (C), and AsFlFFF with UV, MALS, DAD,
and DLS detectors, and a fraction collector (D).
Automated on-line system for the isolation of
nanosized biomacromolecules.
The system consisted of a selection valve for controlling the isolation
process (A), a monolithic column for IAC (B), an automated six port
valve for injection to AsFlFFF (C), and AsFlFFF with UV, MALS, DAD,
and DLS detectors, and a fraction collector (D).The selection valve was used for controlling the isolation process
(Figure A), which
included a 5 mL syringe pump and an autosampler for 10 samples. Process
automation and control of the isolation process were performed using
customized software. A three-port valve was used to connect the mobile
phase reservoir to the syringe pump. The IAC based isolation included
a monolithic column with immobilized immunoaffinity ligand (Figure B). The elution conditions
to release the isolates from the column, immobilized with antibodies,
were optimized in our previous studies.[13,14] With an automated
six port valve we connected monolithic column on-line to AsFlFFF (Figure C). The injection
steps were controlled by a timer in our software that turned the valve
and started the AsFlFFF run after the biomolecules entered the sample
loop. This minimized the time under high pH conditions. AsFlFFF was
utilized for characterization and provided valuable information on
the size distribution and concentration of different subpopulations
of the biomacromolecules with MALS, DLS, UV, and DAD detectors, and
gentle fractionation of the isolates (Figure D). The fractions were collected with a fraction
collector in a physiological buffer (PBS) for further analysis and
characterization.
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
Preconcentrated
combined fractions of EV subpopulations were dried on clean polished
silicon wafer surfaces. The samples were then coated with a 3 nm Au–Pd
alloy using a Cressington 208HR high resolution sputter coater and
imaged at 3 kV with secondary electrons.
Hydrophilic Interaction
Liquid Chromatography–Tandem
Mass Spectrometry (HILIC-MS/MS)
Amino Acids and Glucose
Extraction
CD9- and CD61-positive
(CD9+ and CD61+) EV fractions were subjected
to preconcentration and salt removal with disposable Nanosep centrifugal
devices with 10 K molecular weight cutoff membrane filters at 14 000g for 2 min for each 500 μL fraction at room temperature.
The filtrate was discarded. Thereafter, coldacetonitrile (50 μL)
was added to the membrane for EV lysis and removal of precipitated
proteins. Coldacetonitrile precipitated proteins effectively from
human plasma[17] and lysed the lipid bilayer
membranes.[18] After vortexing, the filter
unit was centrifuged for another 2 min at 14 000g. The filtrate was then collected, and the ISTD mixture which yielded
the final concentration of 1 ppm of amino acids (glycine-2,2-d2, l-phenylalanine-3,3-d2, and l-lysine-4,4,5,5-d4) and 5 ppm of d-fructose-13C6 in MQwater containing
0.1% formic acid was added to the filtrate for HILIC-MS/MS analysis.
Determination of Amino Acids and Glucose by HILIC-MS/MS
The method used for the determination of amino acids and glucose
was based on our previously developed method[19] with some modifications. The column temperature was set to 50 °C.
Mobile phase A was acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid, and mobile
phase B was MQwater with 0.1% formic acid. The separation of the
target analytes was performed using the following gradient program
20% B for 15 min (0.4 mL/min), 20–80% B for 5 min (0.3 mL/min),
followed by 80–20% B for 3 min (0.3 mL/min). The injection
volume was 3 μL for all samples. The effluent was electrosprayed,
ionized (positive and negative mode for amino acids and sugars, respectively),
and monitored by MS2 detection in the multiple reaction
monitoring mode (MRM), with the exception of glucose, which was analyzed
in the single ion monitoring mode. Ionization conditions and MRM parameters
for different compounds are given in Table S1.
Total Protein and Total Cholesterol Analysis
Total
cholesterol (free and esterified) concentrations in samples were measured
using the Roche Cholesterol CHOD-PAP reagent (Kit no. 1489232; Roche,
Germany) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The absorbance
was measured with an EnSpire multimode plate reader (PerkinElmer Inc.)
at 510 nm. Total protein concentrations (concentration range: 0.1–1.0
mg/mL) were measured using a Bio-Rad DC Protein Assay Kit (Bio-Rad
Laboratories, Hercules, CA) based on the Lowry method[20] at 750 nm and PierceTM BCA Protein Assay Kit
(Item no. 23225; Thermofisher Scientific) (for concentrations lower
than 0.1 mg/mL) based on bicinchoninic assay (BCA)[21] at 550 nm according to the manufacturer’s protocols.
Calibration curves and sample concentrations were calculated using
EnSpire multilabel analyzer version 4.13.3005.1482.
Statistical
Analysis
Different R 3.6.3 statistical
analysis tools were used in this research. Skewness and Kurtosis tests
for data distribution evaluation, principal component analysis (PCA)
for visualization of differences between CD9+ and CD61+ EV subpopulations, and linear discriminant analysis (LDA)
for statistical confirmation of these differences, including clarification
of the variables involved in the process. Additional studies were
also made to evaluate the potential differences between EVs of different
sizes (PCA and LDA).[22]In all of
the cases, the concentrations of the free amino acids present in the
EVs normalized by the total amount of protein were exploited as input
variables for the development of the statistical models. Additional
root square transformation was needed to provide normal data distribution
of the input variables.
Results and Discussion
In this section, we describe the automated on-line IAC-AsFlFFF
system and its application for the isolation and fractionation of
nanosized biomacromolecules. Because in our previous studies[13,14] the IAC method was developed for the isolation of LDL particles
in plasma, we tested the applicability of the on-line IAC-AsFlFFF
system first to lipoproteins. Then the study was focused on the isolation
and fractionation of the subpopulations of CD9+ and CD61+ EVs, further characterized by FESEM and surface charge measurements.
In addition, more in-depth vesicular free amino acid and glucose composition
was clarified by HILIC-MS/MS.
Isolation and Fractionation of Human apoB-100
Containing Lipoproteins,
and CD9+, CD61+ EVs by the On-line IAC-AsFlFFF
System
Three different monolithic disk columns for the IAC
were immobilized with anti-apoB-100, anti-CD9, and anti-CD61 according
to our previous protocols.[13,14] IAC process cycles
(Figure S1) for the isolation of apoB-100
containing lipoproteins, CD9+, and CD61+ EVs
can be found in Table S2. The repetition
of the experiments is shown in Figure S1, where the regeneration and waiting periods were taken into account
for the AsFlFFF to be ready for the next fractionation. The total
time for apoB-100 lipoprotein isolation and regeneration of the disk
column was 16.5 min (1 mL sample injection, 3 mL PBS wash, elution
with 2 mL of NH4OH, and 3 mL PBS wash). Isolation and regeneration
of the EV disks took 51 min. The major difference between the isolations
was that EV isolations had a larger sample volume (5 mL) and an additional
NH4OH regeneration step (Eluent 1, Figure A), and carbonate-bicarbonate solution (Eluent
2, Figure A) was used
to elute the EVs. In our previous studies,[14] we found that the carbonate-bicarbonate solution (pH 11.3) was able
to elute LDL particles more specifically compared to NH4OH (pH 11.3) with minimal nonspecifically bound particles, and other
possible protein contaminants. Therefore, the carbonate-bicarbonate
solution was also used for selective elution of EVs in this study,
while NH4OH was used for the elution of all apoB-100-containing
lipoproteins from the anti-apoB-100 disk, and not only LDL. The flow
rate for the apoB-100 containing lipoprotein isolation and elution
was set to 0.5 mL/min, whereas it was 0.25 mL/min for the EV isolation.
The regeneration step for EV disks before the analysis of the next
sample was performed with 2 mL of NH4OH and 3 mL of PBS
at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. No additional regeneration step was needed
for the apoB-100 disk, since NH4OH was already used for
elution. AsFlFFF run was automatically started after the eluent of
IAC filled the sample loop (500 μL) in the six port valve. The
injection flow of 0.1 mL/min was applied over 5 min
during the focus mode at a cross-flow rate of 3 mL/min. PBS
was used as an eluent in the AsFlFFF. The detector flow rate was set
to 0.5 mL/min. A transition time of 1 min followed the focusing
step. Biomolecules were subjected to high pH for only a few minutes
before the buffer of the eluate was replaced with PBS.Separation
and fractionation with AsFlFFF of apoB-100 containing lipoproteins
was achieved with 2 min linear decrease in cross-flow to 0.5 mL/min,
followed by a linear decrease over 1–0 mL/min. After
the cross-flow reached 0 mL/min, only the detector flow was
applied for 15 min. The total run time was 24 min and the fraction
collection needed extra 2 min.Separation and fractionation
with AsFlFFF of CD9+ and
CD61+ EVs (including their subpopulations of the size range
of exosomes and exomeres) were carried out with 5 min linear
decrease in cross-flow to 1.0 mL/min after the focusing step,
followed by a linear decrease over 15–0 mL/min. After
the cross-flow reached 0 mL/min, only the detector flow was
applied for 14 min. The total run time was 40 min and
extra 2 min was added for the fraction collector. The optimal AsFlFFF
conditions are given in Table S3.
Optimization
of the Six Port Valve Connection from IAC to AsFlFFF
The
six port valve timer of the system for transferring the sample
to AsFlFFF from the IAC (anti-apoB-100 monolithic disk column) was
optimized with 1 mL of 100 μg/mL LDL samples (n = 25, isolated by ultracentrifugation). The biomolecules were eluted
into the loop (500 μL) of the six port valve, and after the
transfer, the AsFlFFF run was started with the signal of the timer.
The time which assured the highest sample concentrations (highest
UV peak areas at 280 nm) was selected (Figure S2) for all of the following experiments. The UV peak areas
showed repeatability of 0.3–6.6% for each selected valve time.
Isolation and Fractionation of apoB-100 Containing Lipoproteins
by IAC-AsFlFFF
To study the recovery of the system, three
LDL samples of 1 mL with concentration of 250 μg/mL (isolated
from human plasma by ultracentrifugation, diluted with PBS to the
required concentration) were captured and fractionated by IAC-AsFlFFF.
The recovery was 99.6% based on DC protein assay and the samples contained
0.43 ± 0.01 mg of cholesterol. In addition, raw flow DLS data
showed good repeatability of the isolation and fractionation (Figure A), while the RSD
of the UV peak areas was 6.6%. The hydrodynamic diameter (24–28
nm) of LDL particles at a retention time of 10–15 min agreed
well the size range reported in the literature.[8] Isoabsorbance plots of the DAD detector also allowed the
detection of carotenoids (11–18 min) in the LDL core (430–500
nm).[4] Most of the carotenoids were found
at 12–15 min, where most of the LDLs were retained. The tail
of the DLS peak (Figure A) with a bigger size corresponds probably to fused LDL particles
and LDL aggregates found in the sample.
Figure 2
IAC-AsFlFFF analysis
profiles after fractionating the anti-apoB-100 monolithic disk isolates.
Technical replicates (n = 3) of raw flow DLS data,
hydrodynamic diameter (dots as Z-Average) on the
top, and isoabsorbance plot of selected run in the bottom, of preisolated
LDLs (A) and apoB-100 containing lipoproteins isolated from human
plasma (B).
IAC-AsFlFFF analysis
profiles after fractionating the anti-apoB-100 monolithic disk isolates.
Technical replicates (n = 3) of raw flow DLS data,
hydrodynamic diameter (dots as Z-Average) on the
top, and isoabsorbance plot of selected run in the bottom, of preisolated
LDLs (A) and apoB-100 containing lipoproteins isolated from human
plasma (B).The system was also used to study
human plasma samples (1 mL, dilution
factor 1:10 in PBS) to verify the applicability of the system, giving
0.84% (n = 3) for the RSD of UV peak areas. Not only
the DLS and DAD analysis profiles resembled those of pure LDL, but
also bigger sized particles were detected (Figure B), since the isolation with anti-apoB-100
monolithic disk was based on the recognition of the epitope of the
apoB-100. Chylomicrons, very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles,
and their remnants (intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) particles)
were also captured by the anti-apoB-100 disk, as confirmed by the
hydrodynamic diameter of 95 nm obtained from the DLS data. The results
agreed with our previous experiments.[14] The IAC also trapped small LDL particles of under 24 nm (retention
time 11–12 min, Figure B), which were not present in our ultracentrifugation method
for LDL isolation described in Ref 23. The on-line system could successfully
capture all major lipoproteins,[8] except
HDL, that went through the monolithic column. The carotenoids were
also found in the plasma isolates (at retention time 11–22
min), with the highest concentration at a retention time of 13 min.
Isolation and Fractionation of CD9+ and CD61+ EVs by IAC-AsFlFFF
The system was utilized to study
subpopulations of EVs. The CD61 antibody was used for platelet-derived
EVs in the exosomal size range[13] and the
CD9 antibody was used for both EVs originating from multivesicular
bodies (MVBs),[23,24] as well as those CD9+ EVs not originating from MVBs, but having the size range of exosomes.[6,25] Subpopulations were divided based on their sizes: <50 nm for
the size range of exomeres, and 50–80 and 80–120 nm
for the size range of exosomes.[10,13,26] Due to the pore size of monolithic disk columns (1.3 μm in
diameter), bigger sized EVs were excluded from being captured by the
IAC (Figure A). Isoabsorbance
plots indicated no contamination of the isolates from lipoproteins,
since no carotenoids were detected by the DAD. The concentration of
platelet-derived EVs in the exosomal size range was significantly
lower compared to CD9+ EVs (Figure B). The system could successfully and reproducibly
isolate and fractionate the EVs, and FESEM of combined fractions of
the subpopulations (Figure C) agreed with hydrodynamic diameters obtained by DLS. The
RSD of UV peak areas of CD9+ EVs was 2.9%, while it was
4.2% for CD61+ EVs. The EVs in the size range of exomeres
(<50 nm) were collected by combining fractions at retention times
of 16–26 min, 50–80 nm sized exosomes at 27–34
min, and 80–120 nm sized exosomes at 35–40 min. Surprisingly,
the exomere sized EVs were also detected at relatively high concentrations,
while they are reported[10] to contain low
levels of tetraspanin CD9 and integrins like CD61. The previously
reported results on exomeres were, however, obtained from samples
originating from cell lines and cell culture, whereas our IAC disks
enriched exomere sized CD9+ and CD61+ EVs from
all possible cells that secrete exomeres to plasma, thus collecting
together all possible CD9+ and CD61+ exomeres.
Even smaller sized particles than exomeres were also found at the
retention time of 10–15 min in both cases (Figure B). The mean surface charges
(ζ potential) of the isolated exomere and exosome sized EVs
were negatively charged (Figure S3), also
agreeing with previously reported results.[10] The CD9+ < 50 nm EVs had a mean charge of −14.1
mV (n = 9 independent measurements for each technical
replicate n = 3), −16.2 mV for 50–80
nm, and −16.9 mV for 80–120 nm subpopulations. While
the CD61+ < 50 nm subpopulation had a mean charge of
−15.1 and −14.2 mV for 50–80 nm, and −16.6
mV for 80–120 nm subpopulations.
Figure 3
IAC-AsFlFFF analysis
profiles after fractionating the CD9+ and CD61+ EV isolates. Technical replicates (n = 3) of raw
flow DLS data, the hydrodynamic diameter (dots
as Z-Average) on top, and isoabsorbance plot of selected
run at the bottom (A). Overlaid UV spectra (280 nm) from the technical
replicates (B), and FESEM morphology of fractionated subpopulations
(C) for CD9+ and CD61+ EVs.
IAC-AsFlFFF analysis
profiles after fractionating the CD9+ and CD61+ EV isolates. Technical replicates (n = 3) of raw
flow DLS data, the hydrodynamic diameter (dots
as Z-Average) on top, and isoabsorbance plot of selected
run at the bottom (A). Overlaid UV spectra (280 nm) from the technical
replicates (B), and FESEM morphology of fractionated subpopulations
(C) for CD9+ and CD61+ EVs.The IAC-AsFlFFF system resulted in faster and more selective isolation
and fractionation for lipoproteins (38 samples/24 h) and EVs (18 samples/24
h) when compared to conventional standard methods, such as ultracentrifugation,[8,27] with high repeatability, and minor sample loss and contamination.
The IAC utilized high pH[13,14] for the elution of
biomacromolecules. However with on-line AsFlFFF the elution solution
was immediately exchanged to PBS, avoiding long exposure to high pH
and nonphysiological environment. The system was cost-effective and
produced well-controlled final products needed especially in the EV-field.[1] Additionally, it added significantly to the productivity
of personnel and instruments, and quality of the data compared to
our previous approaches for the isolation of same biomacromolecules.[13,14,28]
Amino Acid and Glucose
Analysis of EV Subpopulations Isolated
by On-line IAC-AsFlFFF
In plasma, amino acids are fundamentally
involved in physiological activities, and their levels are used clinically
for diagnostic purposes. EVs have also been found to carry amino acids
along with other small metabolites.[29] Therefore,
the study of free amino acids found in EVs may elucidate their distinct
biological roles and properties. In this study, we also developed
an HILIC-MS/MS method for the analysis of free amino acids and sugars
found in CD9+ and CD61+ EV subpopulations. Chromatograms
with linearity and limit of detection of the method, and effect of
the sample matrix on the results are found in the Supporting Information
(Figures S4–S6, Tables S4 and S5).We found that both CD9+ and CD61+ EVs
shared not only similarities but also differences in terms of free
amino acid concentrations as displayed in Figure A. Among all free amino acids, Ser was found
to be the most abundant. It is worth mentioning that Ser is a nonessential
amino acid, and is an important component in the synthesis of membrane
lipids, including sphingolipids and phosphatidylserine. Both lipids
are enriched in exosomal membranes.[30,31] It is thus
possible that free Ser was incorporated inside the exosomes during
exosome formation processes. In addition, CD61+ EV subpopulations
of exosomal size range (50–80 nm) contained the highest concentrations
of free amino acids, while for CD9+ EVs, the levels were
the highest for the exosomal size range of 80–120 nm. The EVs
< 50 nm (size range of exomeres) were least abundant in Ser, which
indicates their nonmembranous nature as described by Zhang et al.[10]
Figure 4
Multivariate analysis of amino acids found in CD61+ and
CD9+ EV subpopulations. Heat map visualization of amino
acids corresponding to their normalized concentrations (ng/mL per
μg/mL of total protein) (A). Scoring plot of PCA analysis showing
differences between CD61+ and CD9+ EVs (B).
Discriminant analysis of differences between amino acids found in
CD61+ and CD9+ EVs (C). Discriminant analysis
of differences between amino acids found between different sizes of
combined EV subpopulations (D). Scoring plot of PCA analysis revealing
differences between subpopulations of different sizes of CD61+ EVs (E). Discriminant analysis of differences between amino
acids found between CD61+ EV subpopulations (F). Scoring
plot of PCA analysis revealing differences between subpopulations
of different sizes of CD9+ EVs (G). Discriminant analysis
of differences between amino acids found between CD9+ EV
subpopulations (H).
Multivariate analysis of amino acids found in CD61+ and
CD9+ EV subpopulations. Heat map visualization of amino
acids corresponding to their normalized concentrations (ng/mL per
μg/mL of total protein) (A). Scoring plot of PCA analysis showing
differences between CD61+ and CD9+ EVs (B).
Discriminant analysis of differences between amino acids found in
CD61+ and CD9+ EVs (C). Discriminant analysis
of differences between amino acids found between different sizes of
combined EV subpopulations (D). Scoring plot of PCA analysis revealing
differences between subpopulations of different sizes of CD61+ EVs (E). Discriminant analysis of differences between amino
acids found between CD61+ EV subpopulations (F). Scoring
plot of PCA analysis revealing differences between subpopulations
of different sizes of CD9+ EVs (G). Discriminant analysis
of differences between amino acids found between CD9+ EV
subpopulations (H).To further visualize
and clarify the differences between the two
EV subpopulations, PCA and LDA analyses were used. The scoring plot
obtained from PCA analysis (Figure B) revealed clear differences between CD9+ and CD61+ EVs. Based on the LDA results (Figure C), in which over 93% of samples
were correctly classified, the differences between these two groups
were majorly contributed by the following amino acids: Ala, Gly, Lys,
Phe, Ser, Thr, and Val. The levels of Ala, Gly, and Thr, were significantly
higher in CD61+ EVs compared to CD9+ EVs. Ala,
Cys, Gly, Ser, and Thr are potentially involved in the biochemical
pathway of gluconeogenesis from amino acids and can be directly converted
to pyruvate.[32] In addition, Ala and Gly
play major roles in immune responses by inhibiting apoptosis,[33] as well as serving as an anti-inflammatory and
immunomodulatory agent.[34] CD61+ EVs have originated from platelets, and these findings support the
role of platelets in defense mechanism and inflammation.[35] Interestingly, based on the Western blot analysis
previously reported,[13] part of the CD61+ EVs also contained CD9. Thus, the differences from statistical
analyses of CD61+ and CD9+ EVs are most likely
due to subpopulation sets (containing only CD61 or only CD9) that
do not overlap. Moreover, based on subpopulations, regardless of the
EV origin, 50–80 nm subpopulation (in the size range of small
exosomes) contained the highest levels of Ala, Gly, Ser, and Thr (Figure D), indicating that
EVs in the size range of small exosomes are more likely to take part
in gluconeogenesis compared to other subpopulations.The differences
among EVs of < 50 nm for the size range of exomeres
and 50–80 and 80–120 nm for the size range of exosomes
for both CD9+ and CD61+ EVs were further investigated
(Figure E–H).
The PCA analysis suggested a clear distinction among the three subpopulations
of different sizes (Figure E,G). The good classification of the samples by the LDA models
(90 and 100% of the samples correctly classified for CD9+ and CD61+ subpopulations, respectively) confirmed these
results. In CD61+ subpopulations, Cys, Gly, Phe, Ser, and
Thr, contributed to the differences in the size. These free amino
acids were dominant in the 50–80 nm subpopulation, indicating
that among CD61+ EVs in the size range of small exosomes
take part in gluconeogenesis. On the other hand, CD9+ EV
subpopulations were different due to other free amino acids. Asn,
Cit, Glu, Lys, Phe, and Ser contributed significantly in CD9+ EVs (Figure H).
The levels of Asn, Cit, Glu, and Ser, were the highest in the 80–120
nm subpopulation of the large exosomal size range. Interestingly the
levels of Ser were significantly higher in the 80–120 nm subpopulation
compared to 50–80 nm subpopulation among CD9+ EVs.
The differences also confirm distinct cellular origins of CD9+ and CD61+ EVs in the exosomal size range.In addition to amino acids, glucose levels of EVs were measured.
It was found that all subpopulations of CD61+ EVs contained
glucose in the concentration range of pmol/mL. The presence of glucose
can possibly be ascribed to the CD61+ EV fractions being
rich in amino acids essential for gluconeogenesis. However, in CD9+ subpopulations only 50–80 nm subpopulation contained
glucose. Importantly, these findings revealed that different free
amino acids and monosaccharide concentrations were found in EV subpopulations
isolated and fractionated by on-line IAC-AsFlFFF. These differences
can be further utilized as key factors to differentiate the subpopulations
of EVs (exomeres, and small and large exosomes) from different cellular
origin, as well as to confirm distinct properties and functions of
these particles in the human physiology. The functional activity of
isolated and fractionated EVs still needs to be assessed. The results
of this study demonstrated that on-line IAC-AsFlFFF can be utilized
for biomarker and composition studies.
Conclusions
On-line
coupled IAC-AsFlFFF allowed the reliable and fast isolation
and fractionation of challenging biomacromolecules from human plasma,
resulting in high purity subpopulations with high yields. The fully
automated on-line system could process 18–38 samples in 24
h with only minor operator involvement. Due to a gentle fractionation
step, apoB-100 containing lipoproteins, used in the testing step,
and intact EV subpopulations under 120 nm were successfully obtained
as confirmed by DLS and FESEM. The EV subpopulations were further
exposed to particle surface charge as well as free amino acid and
sugar composition studies. The results revealed that there were significant
differences between cellular origin of EVs and even within subpopulations
<120 nm. In addition to three different ligands employed in this
study, the flexible system is applicable to any other ligand that
can be immobilized on the monolithic disk column.
Authors: Marcel I Ramirez; Maria G Amorim; Catarina Gadelha; Ivana Milic; Joshua A Welsh; Vanessa M Freitas; Muhammad Nawaz; Naveed Akbar; Yvonne Couch; Laura Makin; Fiona Cooke; Andre L Vettore; Patricia X Batista; Roberta Freezor; Julia A Pezuk; Lívia Rosa-Fernandes; Ana Claudia O Carreira; Andrew Devitt; Laura Jacobs; Israel T Silva; Gillian Coakley; Diana N Nunes; Dave Carter; Giuseppe Palmisano; Emmanuel Dias-Neto Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: P K Smith; R I Krohn; G T Hermanson; A K Mallia; F H Gartner; M D Provenzano; E K Fujimoto; N M Goeke; B J Olson; D C Klenk Journal: Anal Biochem Date: 1985-10 Impact factor: 3.365
Authors: Anne P Toft-Petersen; Hans H Tilsted; Jens Aarøe; Klaus Rasmussen; Thorkil Christensen; Bruce A Griffin; Inge V Aardestrup; Annette Andreasen; Erik B Schmidt Journal: Lipids Health Dis Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 3.876