fig2

Comparison of extracellular vesicle isolation methods reveals method-dependent protein and miRNA profiles in saliva

Figure 2. Characterization of human salivary extracellular vesicles. (A) Representative particle size distributions of EVs isolated by UC, Q, and M, as determined by NTA (n = 4); (B) Representative cryo-EM images of EVs obtained using each isolation method (UC, Q, M). Scale bars: 100 nm; (C) Mean protein yield (µg ± SEM) obtained from 1 mL of saliva per isolation method, with numerical values indicated below each bar. Statistical analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism (version 10) with Kruskal-Wallis tests, followed by Dunn’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant; (D) EV purity index (mean ± SEM), calculated as the ratio of particle number to total protein content; (E) Western blot analysis of WS samples and EV fractions isolated by UC, Q, and M. Data represent four independent biological replicates, each assessed in three technical replicates. EV: Extracellular vesicles; UC: ultracentrifugation; Q: PEG-based co-precipitation; M: immunoaffinity capture; WS: whole saliva supernatant; NTA: nanoparticle tracking analysis; SEM: standard error of the mean; HSP70: heat shock protein 70; TSG101: tumor susceptibility gene 101; APOA1: apolipoprotein A1; WB: western blot.

Extracellular Vesicles and Circulating Nucleic Acids
ISSN 2767-6641 (Online)
Follow Us

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/