{"title":"Comparison of nanoimaging and nanoflow based detection of extracellular vesicles at a single particle resolution","authors":"Shihan Xu, Zhengrong Zhang, Bridgette C. Melvin, Nibedita Basu Ray, Seiko Ikezu, Tsuneya Ikezu","doi":"10.1002/jex2.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The characterization of single extracellular vesicle (EV) has been an emerging tool for the early detection of various diseases despite there being challenges regarding how to interpret data with different protocols or instruments. In this work, standard EV particles were characterized for single CD9<sup>+</sup>, single CD81<sup>+</sup> or double CD9<sup>+</sup>/CD81<sup>+</sup> tetraspanin molecule positivity with two single EV analytic technologies in order to optimize their EV sample preparation after antibody labelling and analysis methods: NanoImager for direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM)-based EV imaging and characterization, and Flow NanoAnalyzer for flow-based EV quantification and characterization. False positives from antibody aggregates were found during dSTORM-based NanoImager imaging. Analysis of particle radius with lognormal fittings of probability density histogram enabled the removal of antibody aggregates and corrected EV quantification. Furthermore, different machine learning models were trained to differentiate antibody aggregates from EV particles and correct EV quantification with increased double CD9<sup>+</sup>/CD81<sup>+</sup> population. With Flow NanoAnalyzer, EV samples were prepared with different dilution or fractionation methods, which increased the detection rate of CD9<sup>+</sup>/CD81<sup>+</sup> EV population. Comparing the EV phenotype percentages measured by two instruments, differences in double positive and single positive particles existed after percentage correction, which might be due to the different detection limit of each instrument. Our study reveals that the characterization of individual EVs for tetraspanin positivity varies between two platforms—the NanoImager and the Flow NanoAnalyzer—depending on the EV sample preparation methods used after antibody labelling. Additionally, we applied machine learning models to correct for false positive particles identified in imaging-based results by fitting size distribution data.</p>","PeriodicalId":73747,"journal":{"name":"Journal of extracellular biology","volume":"3 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jex2.70016","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of extracellular biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jex2.70016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The characterization of single extracellular vesicle (EV) has been an emerging tool for the early detection of various diseases despite there being challenges regarding how to interpret data with different protocols or instruments. In this work, standard EV particles were characterized for single CD9+, single CD81+ or double CD9+/CD81+ tetraspanin molecule positivity with two single EV analytic technologies in order to optimize their EV sample preparation after antibody labelling and analysis methods: NanoImager for direct stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (dSTORM)-based EV imaging and characterization, and Flow NanoAnalyzer for flow-based EV quantification and characterization. False positives from antibody aggregates were found during dSTORM-based NanoImager imaging. Analysis of particle radius with lognormal fittings of probability density histogram enabled the removal of antibody aggregates and corrected EV quantification. Furthermore, different machine learning models were trained to differentiate antibody aggregates from EV particles and correct EV quantification with increased double CD9+/CD81+ population. With Flow NanoAnalyzer, EV samples were prepared with different dilution or fractionation methods, which increased the detection rate of CD9+/CD81+ EV population. Comparing the EV phenotype percentages measured by two instruments, differences in double positive and single positive particles existed after percentage correction, which might be due to the different detection limit of each instrument. Our study reveals that the characterization of individual EVs for tetraspanin positivity varies between two platforms—the NanoImager and the Flow NanoAnalyzer—depending on the EV sample preparation methods used after antibody labelling. Additionally, we applied machine learning models to correct for false positive particles identified in imaging-based results by fitting size distribution data.
单个细胞外囊泡(EV)的表征已成为早期检测各种疾病的新兴工具,尽管在如何用不同的方案或仪器解释数据方面存在挑战。在这项工作中,利用两种单个EV分析技术对标准EV颗粒进行了表征,以确定单个CD9+、单个CD81+或双CD9+/CD81+四聚体分子的阳性率,从而优化抗体标记后的EV样品制备和分析方法:NanoImager 用于基于直接随机光学重建显微镜 (dSTORM) 的 EV 成像和表征,Flow NanoAnalyzer 用于基于流动的 EV 定量和表征。在基于 dSTORM 的 NanoImager 成像中发现了抗体聚集的假阳性。利用概率密度直方图的对数正态拟合分析粒子半径,可以去除抗体聚集体并修正 EV 定量。此外,还训练了不同的机器学习模型,以区分抗体聚集体和 EV 粒子,并校正增加了双 CD9+/CD81+ 群体的 EV 定量。使用 Flow NanoAnalyzer,用不同的稀释或分馏方法制备 EV 样品,提高了 CD9+/CD81+ EV 群体的检测率。比较两台仪器测定的 EV 表型百分比,百分比校正后发现双阳和单阳颗粒存在差异,这可能是由于两台仪器的检测限不同所致。我们的研究表明,由于抗体标记后使用的 EV 样品制备方法不同,NanoImager 和 Flow NanoAnalyzer 这两个平台对单个 EV 的四聚体阳性的表征也不同。此外,我们还应用了机器学习模型,通过拟合粒度分布数据来纠正基于成像结果识别出的假阳性颗粒。