↓ Skip to main content

Exosome-like vesicles in uterine aspirates: a comparison of ultracentrifugation-based isolation protocols

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exosome-like vesicles in uterine aspirates: a comparison of ultracentrifugation-based isolation protocols
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0935-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Campoy, Lucia Lanau, Tatiana Altadill, Tamara Sequeiros, Silvia Cabrera, Montserrat Cubo-Abert, Assumpción Pérez-Benavente, Angel Garcia, Salvador Borrós, Anna Santamaria, Jordi Ponce, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Jaume Reventós, Antonio Gil-Moreno, Marina Rigau, Eva Colas

Abstract

Uterine aspirates are used in the diagnostic process of endometrial disorders, yet further applications could emerge if its complex milieu was simplified. Exosome-like vesicles isolated from uterine aspirates could become an attractive source of biomarkers, but there is a need to standardize isolation protocols. The objective of the study was to determine whether exosome-like vesicles exist in the fluid fraction of uterine aspirates and to compare protocols for their isolation, characterization, and analysis. We collected uterine aspirates from 39 pre-menopausal women suffering from benign gynecological diseases. The fluid fraction of 27 of those aspirates were pooled and split into equal volumes to evaluate three differential centrifugation-based procedures: (1) a standard protocol, (2) a filtration protocol, and (3) a sucrose cushion protocol. Characterization of isolated vesicles was assessed by electron microscopy, nanoparticle tracking analysis and immunoblot. Specifically for RNA material, we evaluate the effect of sonication and RNase A treatment at different steps of the protocol. We finally confirmed the efficiency of the selected methods in non-pooled samples. All protocols were useful to isolate exosome-like vesicles. However, the Standard procedure was the best performing protocol to isolate exosome-like vesicles from uterine aspirates: nanoparticle tracking analysis revealed a higher concentration of vesicles with a mode of 135 ± 5 nm, and immunoblot showed a higher expression of exosome-related markers (CD9, CD63, and CD81) thus verifying an enrichment in this type of vesicles. RNA contained in exosome-like vesicles was successfully extracted with no sonication treatment and exogenous nucleic acids digestion with RNaseA, allowing the analysis of the specific inner cargo by Real-Time qPCR. We confirmed the existence of exosome-like vesicles in the fluid fraction of uterine aspirates. They were successfully isolated by differential centrifugation giving sufficient proteomic and transcriptomic material for further analyses. The Standard protocol was the best performing procedure since the other two tested protocols did not ameliorate neither yield nor purity of exosome-like vesicles. This study contributes to establishing the basis for future comparative studies to foster the field of biomarker research in gynecology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 28%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Engineering 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 31 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,983,915
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,697
of 4,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,266
of 353,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#47
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.