| Literature DB >> 35673574 |
Nicole Noren Hooten1, Anjali M Byappanahalli1, Mya Vannoy1, Victor Omoniyi1, Michele K Evans1.
Abstract
Recent attention has focused on the use of extracellular vesicles (EVs) as biological indicators of health and disease. These small, nano-sized membrane bound vesicles are secreted from cells into the extracellular space and can be readily isolated from bodily fluids. EVs can carry various bioactive molecules as cargo including DNA, RNA, proteins, and lipids. These EVs can provide a snapshot of the cell of origin and a window of opportunity to assess normal physiological states as well as pathophysiological states. For EVs to further develop as potential biomarkers of disease, it is important to characterize whether these vesicles and their associated cargo are altered in the context of demographic factors. Here, we summarize the current literature on how demographics such as age, race, and sex affect the levels and cargo of EVs. Age and sex influence both EV cargo and concentration while race studies report differences mostly in EV protein cargo. This review also identifies areas of future research and important considerations for the clinical use of EVs as biomarkers. © The author(s).Entities:
Keywords: age; biomarker; cargo; exosomes; extracellular vesicles; race; sex
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35673574 PMCID: PMC9169362 DOI: 10.7150/thno.72676
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.600
Figure 1Biogenesis of extracellular vesicles. The three main classes of extracellular vesicles (EVs) differ in terms of their biogenesis. Exosomes are formed through the endocytic pathway and are released into the extracellular space upon fusion of the multivesicular body (MVB) with the plasma membrane. Microvesicles are formed through the budding of the plasma membrane. Apoptotic bodies are released as cell blebs during apoptosis. These vesicles then interact with recipient cells through various mechanisms.
Human cohort studies examining EVs with respect to age.
| EV characteristics | Findings | Cohort | Age1 | Race/ethnicity2 | Clinical condition | Biofluid | EV isolation method | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration, Size | ↓ EV concentration with ageNo difference in EV size with age |
| AA | Healthy | Plasma | ExoQuick precip. | ||
| Cargo (Protein) | ↓ EV levels of apoptosis proteins (p53, cleaved PARP and cleaved Caspase-3) with age↑ EV levels of CD151 and MUCIN16 with age | n = 30M = 16, F = 14 | 30-35 | |||||
| n = 30 M = 17, F = 13 | 40-55 | |||||||
| Functional effect | EVs from older individuals are internalized more in B cells and activate monocytes compared to EVs from younger individuals | n = 14 M = 6, F = 8 | 55-64 | |||||
| Concentration, Size | No differences in EV concentration or size |
| ASN | Healthy | Plasma | Iodixanol density gradientsize-exclusion chromatography |
| |
| Cargo (Protein) | EV protein differences between age groups | n = 12 | 20-39 | |||||
| Functional effect | EVs from middle and older age groups (>40 years) increase the colony-forming capacity of hematopoietic stem cells compared to untreated and EVs from young subjects | n = 11 M = 7, F = 4 | 40-59 | |||||
| n = 12M = 6, F = 6 | 60-85 | |||||||
| Concentration | ↓ % of CD31+ in SEV, MEV and LEV; CD81+and CD9+ in SEV and MEV; HLA-ABC+ and HLA-DRDPDQ+ in SEV with age | n = 12 M = 6, F = 6 | 40 (22-58) | Not reported | Healthy | Plasma | None3 |
|
| Cargo | ↓ % and # CD29+ and CD31+ EVs with active mitochondria with age. ↓ % CD9+ EVs carrying respiring mitochondria with human age. ↓MitoTracker Deep Red MFI with age in multiple EV subpopulations | |||||||
| Concentration | No difference in EV concentration, total protein concentration, or CD63+ EV levels between young and old |
| Not reported | Not reported | Plasma | Size-exclusion chromatography |
| |
| n = 3(M = 3) | 25-35 | |||||||
| n = 3(M = 3) | 65-75 | |||||||
| Concentration | ↓ in CD41a+, CD105+, and CD235a+ EVMP with age | n = 143M = 80, F = 63 | 40.4 (25-53) | Not reported | Healthy | Plasma | None3 | |
| Cargo (Protein) | No difference in lymphocyte markers on EVs with age |
| Not reported | 18 Healthy adults 33 Aged individuals | Plasma | Centrifugation(20,000 |
| |
| n = 6 | 20-29 | |||||||
| Functional effect | EVs from different aged donors can affect T cell activation | n = 5 | 30-39 | |||||
| n = 7 | 40-49 | |||||||
| n = 6 | 70-79 | |||||||
| n = 10 | 80-89 | |||||||
| n = 13 | 90-99 | |||||||
| n = 4 | 100-104 | |||||||
| Cargo (DNA (mtDNA)) | ↓ Plasma EV mtDNA with age |
| AA | Healthy | Plasma | ExoQuick precip. | ||
| Functional effect | Cells treated with EVs from young individuals had significantly higher levels of both basal and maximal respiration compared to cells treated with EVs from old individuals | n = 21; M = 12, F = 9 (visit 1) and n = 25; M = 16, F = 9 (visit 2) | 30-35 | |||||
| n = 28; M = 17, F = 11 (visit 1) and n = 29; M = 17, F = 12 (visit 2) | 40-55 | |||||||
| n = 6; M = 1, F = 5 (visit 1) and n = 13; M = 5, F = 8 (visit 2) | 55-64 | |||||||
| Concentration | ↓ CD63+,β-1 AR+ and nephrin+ uEVs with age | n = 138M = 69, F = 69 | 20-70 | Not reported | Kidney donors | Urine | None3 |
|
| Cargo (miRNA) | ↑ miR-24-3p in EVs from older individuals. |
| Not reported | Healthy | Saliva | Total exosome isolation kit (Invitrogen) | ||
| n = 15; M = 8, F = 7 | 21-26 | |||||||
| n = 13; M = 6, F = 7 | 61.5 - 72.5 |
1Age reported as mean and/or age range.
2Race abbreviations are as follows: AA = African American, ASN = Asian, HSP = Hispanic, Mé = Métis, W = White.
3No EV isolation method; detection through flow cytometry
*Covariates were included in statistical analyses.
% = percentage; # = number; EV = extracellular vesicles; F = females; LEVs = large EVs; M = males; MEVs = mediums EVs; precip.= precipitation; SEVs = small EVs; Tech. = Technologies; uEVs = urinary EVs
Figure 2Age-related differences in extracellular vesicles. Human cohort studies have examined differences in extracellular vesicle (EV) cargo, concentration, and size in the context of age. EVs from different aged individuals elicit functional effects in recipient cells. Comparisons are indicated between old and young or with advancing age. Details are listed in Table 1. β-1 Adrenergic receptor (B-1 AR), small extracellular vesicles (SEV), medium extracellular vesicles (MEV), large extracellular vesicles (LEV).
Human cohort studies examining EVs with respect to race.
| EV characteristics | Findings | Cohort | Age1 | Race/ethnicity2 | Clinical condition | Biofluid | EV isolation method | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration, Size | No race differences in EV concentration or size | n = 100M = 50, F = 50 | 40-55 | AA | Healthy | Plasma | ExoQuick precip. | |
| Cargo(Protein) | ↑ levels of phospho-p53, total p53, cleaved Caspase 3, ERK 1/2 and phospho-AKT in W compared to AA | |||||||
| Concentration | ↑ EV concentration in prostate cancer v. healthy in both AA and W | Not reported | Not reported | AA | Prostate cancer | Plasma | Ultracentrifugation |
|
| Size | EV size consistent between AA and W between cancer and healthy participants | |||||||
| Cargo(Protein) | AA and W prostate cancer patients share 57 EV proteins6 proteins in EVs found exclusively in AA (CC2D1A, CCDC172, UPF0728 protein C10orf53, Immunoglobulin kappa variable 1-5 (both region EU and region Cum), DNAJC13)42 proteins in EVs found exclusively in W | |||||||
| Concentration | No racial differences in EV concentration |
| AA | Healthy | Plasma | ExoQuick precip. | ||
| n = 30AA = 14, W = 16 | 30-35 | |||||||
| n = 30 AA = 15, W = 15 | 40-55 | |||||||
| n = 14 AA = 9, W = 5 | 55-64 | |||||||
| Cargo(Protein) | ↑ EV levels of XIAP, c-IAP-2 and Survivin in AA v. W patients with prostate cancer | n = 82Non-cancer M = 10Prostate Cancer M = 72(W = 31 M, AA = 41 M) | 48-87 | AA | Prostate cancer | Plasma and serum | ExoQuick precip. |
|
| Cargo(Protein) | Comparison of proteins in EVs that overlapped or were unique in AA, W, and HSP prostate cancer patients. 22 unique proteins in EVs in AA, 13 in W, and 78 in HSP with prostate cancer | n = 21Non-cancer M = 9Prostate Cancer M = 12 (W = 4, AA = 4, HSP = 4) | Non-cancer = 38.0 (26-45)W = 62.5 (48 - 73)AA = 58.1 (48-75)HSP = 66.0 (65-68) | AA | Prostate cancer | Plasma | ExoQuick precip. |
|
| Cargo(Protein) | ↑ in EV levels of annexin A2 in AA TNBC-F v. W TNBC-F | n = 167Non-cancer | Not reported | AA | TNBC | Plasma | Total exosome isolation reagent (Life Tech.) |
|
1Age reported as mean and/or age range.
2Race abbreviations are as follows: AA = African American, HSP = Hispanic, W = White.
*Covariates were included in statistical analyses.
EV = extracellular vesicles; F = females; M = males; precip.= precipitation; Tech. = Technologies; TNBC = triple negative breast cancer.
Figure 3Racial differences in extracellular vesicles. Human cohort studies have examined differences in extracellular vesicle (EV) cargo, concentration, and size in the context of race. Comparisons are indicated between White versus African American individuals. Details are listed in Table 2. African American (AA); Healthy (H) Hispanic (HSP); Prostate Cancer (PCa); Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC); White (W).
Human cohort studies examining EVs with respect to sex.
| EV characteristics | Findings | Cohort | Age1 | Race/ethnicity2 | Clinical condition | Biofluid | EV isolation method | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration, | No difference in concentration or size in F v. M | n = 100M = 50, F = 50 | 40-55 | AA = 50W = 50 | Healthy | Plasma | ExoQuick precip. | |
| Cargo(Protein) | ↑ phospho-IGF-1R levels in F v. M | |||||||
| Concentration and Size | No sex differences in concentration and size | n = 35M = 18, F = 17 | 20-85 | ASN, W Mé | Healthy | Plasma | Iodixanol density gradient size-exclusion chromatography |
|
| Concentration | ↓ CD62E+ EVMP after moderate-intensity continuous exercise v. baseline in F, but not in M ↑ CD62E+ EVMP levels after high-intensity interval exercise v. moderate-intensity continuous exercise in M. | n = 20M = 10, F = 10 | 18-40 | Not reported | Exercise intensity | Plasma | None3 |
|
| Concentration | ↓ erythrocyte and stem cell progenitor EVMP and ↑ in endothelial EVMP in pre-menopausal F v. M↑ erythrocyte-derived EVMP in post-menopausal F v pre-menopausal F↑ PS+ and P-selectin+ EVMP in F v. M | n = 144M = 62, F = 82 | 20-70 | Not reported | Healthy | Plasma | Centrifugation (20,000 |
|
| Concentration | EV levels differed between M and F post-exercise | Obesen = 15 (M = 7, F = 8 ) | Obese 21.2 ± 8.8) | Not reported | Acute exercise in obese and normal weight | Plasma | Ultracentrifugation | |
| Normal-weight n = 8(M = 4, F = 4) | Normal weight (26.2 ± 7.2) | |||||||
| Concentration | ↑ Annexin V+, platelet (CD61+ and P-selectin+) and endothelial (E-selectin+) EVMP in F v. M↑ Annexin V+, platelet (CD63+, CD61+, and P-selectin+) and endothelial (E-selectin+) EVMP in F during luteal phase v. M↑ Annexin V+, CD63+, CD61+ and ↓ E-selectin+ EVMP in F in luteal v. follicular phase of menstrual cycle | n = 45M = 18, F = 27 | Not reported | Not reported | Healthy; different phases of menstrual cycle | Plasma | Centrifugation (17,570 |
|
| Concentration | Various EVMP levels were similiar between F and M↓ in CD105+ EVMP in F >55 yrs of age compared to <55 yrs | n = 143M = 80, F = 63 | 40.4 (25.25-53) | Not reported | Healthy | Plasma | None3 |
|
| Cargo(Protein,RNA) | No difference reported for protein or RNA | |||||||
| Cargo(Protein) | Sex differences in neuronal-derived EV protein levels between cognitively normal and cognitively impaired individuals with or without HIV infection | n = 80M = 29, F = 51 | Not reported | Not reported | HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders | Plasma | ExoQuick precipitation andimmuno-precip. | |
| Cargo(Protein) | 5 proteins (Serpin C1, Serpin G1, Serpin F2, CD14, Cystatin C) in EVs were different in F with and without IHD | Control n = 257 (65% F)Case (with stable IHD)n = 187 (46% F) | 67.65 ± 9.10 | Not reported | Ischemic heart disease | Plasma | Lipo-protein subfraction isolation | |
| Cargo(Protein) | No EV protein sex differences in overall cohortEV levels of CD171, PD-L1 and CD151 were higher in M v. F smokers↓ EV levels of TSG101, AREG, MUC1, CD146, CD13, CEA, EGFR, CD142, Ny-ESO-1, EpCAM, and PLAP in F smokers v. F non-smokers. ↑ EV levels of HER2, c-MET, CD171, PD-L1, and CD151 in M smokers v. M non-smokers↓ EV levels of AREG and MUC1 with age in M | n = 161M = 90, F = 71(Non-smoking M = 62, Non-smoking F = 48) | 40-69 | Not reported | Healthy v. smoking status | Plasma | EV array |
|
| Cargo(miRNA) | ↓ EV levels of miR-146a-5p and miR-21-5p in F following ethanol intoxication↑ EV levels of miR-182-5p in M following ethanol intoxication | Control n = 18 (M = 9, F = 9)Neuroinflammation n = 18 (M = 9, F = 9) | M = 20.67F = 19.88 | Not reported | Alcohol-induced neuroinflammation | Plasma | Total exosome isolation kit (Invitrogen) |
|
| Cargo(miRNA) | ↑miR-34a in apoptosis-derived EVEMP in M v. F↓ miR-125a in activation-derived EVEMP in M v. F | n = 30M = 15, F = 15 | 56 ± 6 | Not reported | Healthy | Plasma | None2 |
|
| Concentration | ↓uEVs in F v. M | n = 19 M = 7, F = 12 | 58 +12 | Not reported | Kidney donors | Urine | Differential ultracentrifugation |
|
| Concentration | ↑ uEVs in F v. M↑ PS+, CD63+, SM22 alpha+, and Claudin-1+ in F vs. M | n=138M=69 F=69 | 20-70 | Not reported | Kidney donors | Urine | None3 |
|
| Concentration | Differences in uEV populations of various inflammatory and kidney-specific protein markers between both control and kidney stone positive F and M | n = 110M = 60, F = 50 | 19-76 | Not reported | Kidney stone | Urine | None3 |
|
| Cargo(miRNA) | ↓ 69 miRNAs in OA-M v. non-OA-M↓ 91 miRNAs in OA-F v. non-OA-F↑ 52 miRNAs in OA-F v. non-OA-F | n = 6 non-OA (M = 3, F = 3)n = 8 OA (M = 4, F = 4 ) | 47.42 | Not reported | Osteoarthritis | Synovial fluid | Total exosome isolation kit (Life Tech.) |
|
| Cargo(Protein) | 7 proteins (SAGA-associated factor 29 homolog, COL6A1, Complement component 5 variant, KIAA1466 protein, Beta-2-glycoprotein I, FLJ94908 highly similar to PPAR binding protein,3'-5' exonuclease TREX2 long form) in EVs differ between OA-M v. non-OA-M12 proteins (HP fragment, HP, V1-5 protein fragment, Alpha-1-Acid Glycoprotein 1, Anti-HER3 scFv, APOL1, anti-folate binding protein, C1QC, HRV Fab N27-VL, CP fragment, CP, Myosin-reactive immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region) in EVs differ between OA-F v. non-OA-F | n = 15 non-OA(M = 7, F = 8)n = 17 OA(M = 7, F = 10) | 47.42 | Not reported | Osteoarthritis | Synovial fluid | Total exosome isolation kit (Life Tech.) |
|
1Age reported as mean and/or age range.
2Race abbreviations are as follows: AA = African American, HSP = Hispanic, Mé = Métis, W = White.
*Covariates were included in statistical analyses.
EV = extracellular vesicles; EVMP = EVs defined as microparticles or microvesicles; EVEMP=endothelial-derived EVs defined as microparticles or microvesicles; F = females; IHD = Ischemic heart disease; M = males; OA = Osteoarthritis; precip.= precipitation; Tech. = Technologies; uEVs = urinary EVs
Figure 4Sex differences in extracellular vesicles. Human cohort studies have examined differences in extracellular vesicle (EV) cargo, concentration, and size in the context of sex. Comparisons are indicated between females versus males unless stated otherwise. Details are listed in Table 3. Females (F); Ischemic heart disease (IHD); Males (M); Osteoarthritis (OA); Post-menopause (PM); Pre-menopause (PRM).
Figure 5Methods used for EV separation by biofluid. Human cohort studies listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 were compiled by EV separation method and categorized based on biofluid. Details of the methods are described in the Tables and listed as: Precipitation methods (Precipitation), low speed centrifugation (Centrifugation), ultracentrifugation (UC), Combination (two techniques were combined), Size exclusion chromatography (SEC), None (no EV separation, EVs were detected by flow cytometry), and Other (see Tables for details).