Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms
Abstract We compared four orthogonal technologies for sizing, counting, and phenotyping of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and synthetic particles. The platforms were: single‐particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP‐IRIS) with fluorescence, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) with fluo...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2021-04-01
|
Series: | Journal of Extracellular Vesicles |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/jev2.12079 |
id |
doaj-fd746bab0cb349b79fa923c7436a96ca |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Tanina Arab Emily R. Mallick Yiyao Huang Liang Dong Zhaohao Liao Zezhou Zhao Olesia Gololobova Barbara Smith Norman J. Haughey Kenneth J. Pienta Barbara S. Slusher Patrick M. Tarwater Juan Pablo Tosar Angela M. Zivkovic Wyatt N. Vreeland Michael E. Paulaitis Kenneth W. Witwer |
spellingShingle |
Tanina Arab Emily R. Mallick Yiyao Huang Liang Dong Zhaohao Liao Zezhou Zhao Olesia Gololobova Barbara Smith Norman J. Haughey Kenneth J. Pienta Barbara S. Slusher Patrick M. Tarwater Juan Pablo Tosar Angela M. Zivkovic Wyatt N. Vreeland Michael E. Paulaitis Kenneth W. Witwer Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms Journal of Extracellular Vesicles ectosomes exosomes extracellular vesicles microvesicles nanoflow cytometry nanoparticle tracking analysis |
author_facet |
Tanina Arab Emily R. Mallick Yiyao Huang Liang Dong Zhaohao Liao Zezhou Zhao Olesia Gololobova Barbara Smith Norman J. Haughey Kenneth J. Pienta Barbara S. Slusher Patrick M. Tarwater Juan Pablo Tosar Angela M. Zivkovic Wyatt N. Vreeland Michael E. Paulaitis Kenneth W. Witwer |
author_sort |
Tanina Arab |
title |
Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms |
title_short |
Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms |
title_full |
Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms |
title_fullStr |
Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms |
title_full_unstemmed |
Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms |
title_sort |
characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platforms |
publisher |
Taylor & Francis Group |
series |
Journal of Extracellular Vesicles |
issn |
2001-3078 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
Abstract We compared four orthogonal technologies for sizing, counting, and phenotyping of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and synthetic particles. The platforms were: single‐particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP‐IRIS) with fluorescence, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) with fluorescence, microfluidic resistive pulse sensing (MRPS), and nanoflow cytometry measurement (NFCM). EVs from the human T lymphocyte line H9 (high CD81, low CD63) and the promonocytic line U937 (low CD81, high CD63) were separated from culture conditioned medium (CCM) by differential ultracentrifugation (dUC) or a combination of ultrafiltration (UF) and size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and Western blot (WB). Mixtures of synthetic particles (silica and polystyrene spheres) with known sizes and/or concentrations were also tested. MRPS and NFCM returned similar particle counts, while NTA detected counts approximately one order of magnitude lower for EVs, but not for synthetic particles. SP‐IRIS events could not be used to estimate particle concentrations. For sizing, SP‐IRIS, MRPS, and NFCM returned similar size profiles, with smaller sizes predominating (per power law distribution), but with sensitivity typically dropping off below diameters of 60 nm. NTA detected a population of particles with a mode diameter greater than 100 nm. Additionally, SP‐IRIS, MRPS, and NFCM were able to identify at least three of four distinct size populations in a mixture of silica or polystyrene nanoparticles. Finally, for tetraspanin phenotyping, the SP‐IRIS platform in fluorescence mode was able to detect at least two markers on the same particle, while NFCM detected either CD81 or CD63. Based on the results of this study, we can draw conclusions about existing single‐particle analysis capabilities that may be useful for EV biomarker development and mechanistic studies. |
topic |
ectosomes exosomes extracellular vesicles microvesicles nanoflow cytometry nanoparticle tracking analysis |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1002/jev2.12079 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT taninaarab characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT emilyrmallick characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT yiyaohuang characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT liangdong characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT zhaohaoliao characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT zezhouzhao characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT olesiagololobova characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT barbarasmith characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT normanjhaughey characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT kennethjpienta characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT barbarasslusher characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT patrickmtarwater characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT juanpablotosar characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT angelamzivkovic characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT wyattnvreeland characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT michaelepaulaitis characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms AT kennethwwitwer characterizationofextracellularvesiclesandsyntheticnanoparticleswithfourorthogonalsingleparticleanalysisplatforms |
_version_ |
1721512000078479360 |
spelling |
doaj-fd746bab0cb349b79fa923c7436a96ca2021-04-24T04:34:27ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Extracellular Vesicles2001-30782021-04-01106n/an/a10.1002/jev2.12079Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single‐particle analysis platformsTanina Arab0Emily R. Mallick1Yiyao Huang2Liang Dong3Zhaohao Liao4Zezhou Zhao5Olesia Gololobova6Barbara Smith7Norman J. Haughey8Kenneth J. Pienta9Barbara S. Slusher10Patrick M. Tarwater11Juan Pablo Tosar12Angela M. Zivkovic13Wyatt N. Vreeland14Michael E. Paulaitis15Kenneth W. Witwer16Department of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Urology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Cell Biology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Neurology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Urology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Neurology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Epidemiology Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore Maryland USAFaculty of Science Universidad de la República Montevideo UruguayDepartment of Nutrition University of California Davis Davis California USABioprocess Measurements Group National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg Maryland USACenter for Nanomedicine at the Wilmer Eye Institute Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USADepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USAAbstract We compared four orthogonal technologies for sizing, counting, and phenotyping of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and synthetic particles. The platforms were: single‐particle interferometric reflectance imaging sensing (SP‐IRIS) with fluorescence, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) with fluorescence, microfluidic resistive pulse sensing (MRPS), and nanoflow cytometry measurement (NFCM). EVs from the human T lymphocyte line H9 (high CD81, low CD63) and the promonocytic line U937 (low CD81, high CD63) were separated from culture conditioned medium (CCM) by differential ultracentrifugation (dUC) or a combination of ultrafiltration (UF) and size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and Western blot (WB). Mixtures of synthetic particles (silica and polystyrene spheres) with known sizes and/or concentrations were also tested. MRPS and NFCM returned similar particle counts, while NTA detected counts approximately one order of magnitude lower for EVs, but not for synthetic particles. SP‐IRIS events could not be used to estimate particle concentrations. For sizing, SP‐IRIS, MRPS, and NFCM returned similar size profiles, with smaller sizes predominating (per power law distribution), but with sensitivity typically dropping off below diameters of 60 nm. NTA detected a population of particles with a mode diameter greater than 100 nm. Additionally, SP‐IRIS, MRPS, and NFCM were able to identify at least three of four distinct size populations in a mixture of silica or polystyrene nanoparticles. Finally, for tetraspanin phenotyping, the SP‐IRIS platform in fluorescence mode was able to detect at least two markers on the same particle, while NFCM detected either CD81 or CD63. Based on the results of this study, we can draw conclusions about existing single‐particle analysis capabilities that may be useful for EV biomarker development and mechanistic studies.https://doi.org/10.1002/jev2.12079ectosomesexosomesextracellular vesiclesmicrovesiclesnanoflow cytometrynanoparticle tracking analysis |