↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of exosome purification methods using a model liposome system and tunable-resistive pulse sensing

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
223 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
508 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
Analysis of exosome purification methods using a model liposome system and tunable-resistive pulse sensing
Published in
Scientific Reports, January 2015
DOI 10.1038/srep07639
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca E. Lane, Darren Korbie, Will Anderson, Ramanathan Vaidyanathan, Matt Trau

Abstract

Exosomes are vesicles which have garnered interest due to their diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Isolation of pure yields of exosomes from complex biological fluids whilst preserving their physical characteristics is critical for downstream applications. In this study, we use 100 nm-liposomes from 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC) and cholesterol as a model system as a model system to assess the effect of exosome isolation protocols on vesicle recovery and size distribution using a single-particle analysis method. We demonstrate that liposome size distribution and ζ-potential are comparable to extracted exosomes, making them an ideal model for comparison studies. Four different purification protocols were evaluated, with liposomes robustly isolated by three of them. Recovered yields varied and liposome size distribution was unaltered during processing, suggesting that these protocols do not induce particle aggregation. This leads us to conclude that the size distribution profile and characteristics of vesicles are stably maintained during processing and purification, suggesting that reports detailing how exosomes derived from tumour cells differ in size to those from normal cells are reporting a real phenomenon. However, we hypothesize that larger particles present in most purified exosome samples represent co-purified contaminating non-exosome debris. These isolation techniques are therefore likely nonspecific and may co-isolate non-exosome material of similar physical properties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 508 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 491 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 139 27%
Researcher 92 18%
Student > Master 67 13%
Student > Bachelor 42 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 6%
Other 71 14%
Unknown 69 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 115 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 87 17%
Engineering 52 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 10%
Chemistry 23 5%
Other 87 17%
Unknown 94 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,529,801
of 24,503,376 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#22,110
of 133,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,149
of 361,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#145
of 1,027 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,503,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 361,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,027 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.