Buschmann Dominik, Kirchner Benedikt, Hermann Stefanie, Märte Melanie, Wurmser Christine, Brandes Florian, Kotschote Stefan, Bonin Michael, Steinlein Ortrud K, Pfaffl Michael W, Schelling Gustav, Reithmair Marlene
Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Division of Animal Physiology and Immunology, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany.
J Extracell Vesicles. 2018 Jun 4;7(1):1481321. doi: 10.1080/20013078.2018.1481321. eCollection 2018.
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are intercellular communicators with key functions in physiological and pathological processes and have recently garnered interest because of their diagnostic and therapeutic potential. The past decade has brought about the development and commercialization of a wide array of methods to isolate EVs from serum. Which subpopulations of EVs are captured strongly depends on the isolation method, which in turn determines how suitable resulting samples are for various downstream applications. To help clinicians and scientists choose the most appropriate approach for their experiments, isolation methods need to be comparatively characterized. Few attempts have been made to comprehensively analyse vesicular microRNAs (miRNAs) in patient biofluids for biomarker studies. To address this discrepancy, we set out to benchmark the performance of several isolation principles for serum EVs in healthy individuals and critically ill patients. Here, we compared five different methods of EV isolation in combination with two RNA extraction methods regarding their suitability for biomarker discovery-focused miRNA sequencing as well as biological characteristics of captured vesicles. Our findings reveal striking method-specific differences in both the properties of isolated vesicles and the ability of associated miRNAs to serve in biomarker research. While isolation by precipitation and membrane affinity was highly suitable for miRNA-based biomarker discovery, methods based on size-exclusion chromatography failed to separate patients from healthy volunteers. Isolated vesicles differed in size, quantity, purity and composition, indicating that each method captured distinctive populations of EVs as well as additional contaminants. Even though the focus of this work was on transcriptomic profiling of EV-miRNAs, our insights also apply to additional areas of research. We provide guidance for navigating the multitude of EV isolation methods available today and help researchers and clinicians make an informed choice about which strategy to use for experiments involving critically ill patients.
细胞外囊泡(EVs)是细胞间通讯器,在生理和病理过程中发挥关键作用,并且由于其诊断和治疗潜力,最近引起了人们的关注。在过去十年中,出现了多种从血清中分离EVs的方法并实现了商业化。所捕获的EVs亚群很大程度上取决于分离方法,而这又决定了所得样本对于各种下游应用的适用性。为了帮助临床医生和科学家为他们的实验选择最合适的方法,需要对分离方法进行比较表征。很少有人尝试全面分析患者生物流体中的囊泡微小RNA(miRNA)用于生物标志物研究。为了解决这一差异,我们着手对健康个体和重症患者血清EVs的几种分离原理的性能进行基准测试。在这里,我们比较了五种不同的EV分离方法与两种RNA提取方法在用于基于生物标志物发现的miRNA测序的适用性以及所捕获囊泡的生物学特性方面的差异。我们的研究结果揭示了分离囊泡的特性以及相关miRNA在生物标志物研究中的作用能力方面存在显著的方法特异性差异。虽然通过沉淀和膜亲和进行分离非常适合基于miRNA的生物标志物发现,但基于尺寸排阻色谱的方法未能将患者与健康志愿者区分开来。分离出的囊泡在大小、数量、纯度和组成上存在差异,这表明每种方法捕获的是不同的EVs群体以及其他污染物。尽管这项工作的重点是EV-miRNA的转录组分析,但我们的见解也适用于其他研究领域。我们为在当今众多可用的EV分离方法中进行选择提供指导,并帮助研究人员和临床医生就是否对涉及重症患者的实验使用哪种策略做出明智的选择。