ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Comparison of Methods for Quantifying Extracellular Vesicles of Gram-Negative Bacteria.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploiting the role of milk extracellular vesicles: a comprehensive analysis on isolation methods, characterization, surface modifications, and their therapeutic applications.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Article
- Membrane lipid order predicts potency decline in therapeutic extracellular vesicles following handling, storage, and reconstitution stress.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Article
- Therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles: A focus on inflammatory bowel disease.Clinical and translational medicine · 2024Review
- Introduction to the Special Issue Dedicated to Extracellular Vesicles and Nanoparticles, Part 1.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There are a variety of methods employed by laboratories for quantifying extracellular vesicles isolated from bacteria. As a result, the ability to compare results across published studies can lead to questions regarding the suitability of methods and buffers for accurately quantifying these vesicles. Within the literature, there are several common methods for vesicle quantification. These include lipid quantification using the lipophilic dye FM 4-64, protein quantification using microBCA, Qubit, and NanoOrange assays, or direct vesicle enumeration using nanoparticle tracking analysis. In addition, various diluents and lysis buffers are also used to resuspend and treat vesicles. In this study, we directly compared the quantification of a bacterial outer membrane vesicle using several commonly used methods. We also tested the impact of different buffers, buffer age, lysis method, and vesicle diluent on vesicle quantification. The results showed that buffer age had no significant effect on vesicle quantification, but the lysis method impacted the reliability of measurements using Qubit and NanoOrange. The microBCA assay displayed the least variability in protein concentration values and was the most consistent, regardless of the buffer or diluent used. MicroBCA also demonstrated the strongest correlation to the NTA-determined particle number across a range of vesicle concentrations. Overall, these results indicate that with appropriate diluent and buffer choice, microBCA vs. NTA standard curves could be generated and the microBCA assay used to estimate the particle number when NTA instrumentation is not readily available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.