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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: 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
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