» Articles » PMID: 30926864

Comparative Analysis of Exosome Isolation Methods Using Culture Supernatant for Optimum Yield, Purity and Downstream Applications

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Mar 31
PMID 30926864
Citations 268
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Exosomes have received significant attention for their role in pathobiological processes and are being explored as a tool for disease diagnosis and management. Consequently, various isolation methods based on different principles have been developed for exosome isolation. Here we compared the efficacy of four kits from Invitrogen, 101Bio, Wako and iZON along with conventional ultracentrifugation-based method for exosome yield, purity and quality. Cell culture supernatant was used as an abundant source of exosomes, and exosome quantity, size-distribution, zeta-potential, marker-expression and RNA/protein quality were determined. The Invitrogen kit gave the highest yield but the preparation showed broader size-distribution likely due to microvesicle co-precipitation and had the least dispersion stability. Other preparations showed <150 nm size range and good stability. Preparation from iZON column; however, had a broader size-distribution in the lower size range suggestive of some impurities of non-vesicular aggregates. RNA quality from all preparations was comparable; however, proteins from Invitrogen method-based exosomal preparation showed polyethylene glycol (PEG) contamination in mass spectrometry. Chemical impurities from the precipitant could also be the cause of toxicity of Invitrogen method-based exosomal preparation in biological growth measurement assay. Together, these findings should serve as a guide to choose and further optimize exosome isolation methods for their desired downstream applications.

Citing Articles

Emerging Frontiers in acute kidney injury: The role of extracellular vesicles.

Li S, Zhou L, Huang Y, Tang S Bioact Mater. 2025; 48:149-170.

PMID: 40046015 PMC: 11880721. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2025.02.018.


Optical sorting: past, present and future.

Yang M, Shi Y, Song Q, Wei Z, Dun X, Wang Z Light Sci Appl. 2025; 14(1):103.

PMID: 40011460 PMC: 11865320. DOI: 10.1038/s41377-024-01734-5.


Extracellular vesicles in tumor immunity: mechanisms and novel insights.

Kuang L, Wu L, Li Y Mol Cancer. 2025; 24(1):45.

PMID: 39953480 PMC: 11829561. DOI: 10.1186/s12943-025-02233-w.


Muscle-derived extracellular vesicles mediate crosstalk between skeletal muscle and other organs.

Jia J, Wang L, Zhou Y, Zhang P, Chen X Front Physiol. 2025; 15():1501957.

PMID: 39844898 PMC: 11750798. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1501957.


Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosome and liposome hybrids as transfection nanocarriers of Cas9-GFP plasmid to HEK293T cells.

Gharehchelou B, Mehrarya M, Sefidbakht Y, Uskokovic V, Suri F, Arjmand S PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0315168.

PMID: 39804902 PMC: 11729927. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315168.


References
1.
Luga V, Zhang L, Viloria-Petit A, Ogunjimi A, Inanlou M, Chiu E . Exosomes mediate stromal mobilization of autocrine Wnt-PCP signaling in breast cancer cell migration. Cell. 2012; 151(7):1542-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.11.024. View

2.
Chang M, Chang Y, Chao P, Yu Q . Exosome purification based on PEG-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6):e0199438. PMC: 6014651. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199438. View

3.
Muralidharan-Chari V, Clancy J, Plou C, Romao M, Chavrier P, Raposo G . ARF6-regulated shedding of tumor cell-derived plasma membrane microvesicles. Curr Biol. 2009; 19(22):1875-85. PMC: 3150487. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.059. View

4.
Abramowicz A, Widlak P, Pietrowska M . Proteomic analysis of exosomal cargo: the challenge of high purity vesicle isolation. Mol Biosyst. 2016; 12(5):1407-19. DOI: 10.1039/c6mb00082g. View

5.
Patel G, Patton M, Singh S, Khushman M, Singh A . Pancreatic Cancer Exosomes: Shedding Off for a Meaningful Journey. Pancreat Disord Ther. 2016; 6(2):e148. PMC: 4809018. DOI: 10.4172/2165-7092.1000e148. View