Fanni Annamária Boros, Alexandra Gentschev, Jan Van Deun, Witold Szymanski, Johannes Graumann, Martin Regensburger, Philipp Arnold, Friederike Zunke
{"title":"Human salivary extracellular vesicles: a comparative study of isolation techniques.","authors":"Fanni Annamária Boros, Alexandra Gentschev, Jan Van Deun, Witold Szymanski, Johannes Graumann, Martin Regensburger, Philipp Arnold, Friederike Zunke","doi":"10.1016/j.bpr.2026.100292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Saliva offers a valuable source of analyte for extracellular vesicle (EV) -based biomarker research, however, due to the complex composition of saliva, the isolation of salivary EVs remains technically challenging. The aim of our study is to systematically compare three salivary EV isolation techniques by assessing the obtained EV sample quality and quantity, and to highlight differences between the three methods with respect to costs, isolation time, and potential for parallel sample handling (i.e. sample throughput). For the enrichment of EVs we used three EV isolation techniques with saliva samples of four healthy donors: polymer precipitation (PP), membrane affinity (MA), and size exclusion chromatography (SEC). The vesicles obtained were characterized via transmission electron microscopy (TEM), SDS-PAGE and Western blot (WB), and conventional nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) and interferometric nanoparticle tracking analysis (iNTA). Our results indicate that all isolation methods resulted in successful enrichment of EVs of similar size distribution. However, we observed differences with respect to vesicle yield and detectability of positive EV markers, potentially reflecting differences in vesicle integrity and sample purity. Assessment of particle number via NTA and iNTA approaches revealed prominent differences in EV number of MA samples but not in the case of samples prepared with other enrichment methods, highlighting the importance of the choice of analysis method. Our study highlights advantages and potential shortcomings of three salivary EV isolation approaches, and calls attention to the importance of multimodal analysis of EV samples, combining approaches for EV marker detection, imaging, NTA and iNTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":72402,"journal":{"name":"Biophysical reports","volume":" ","pages":"100292"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biophysical reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpr.2026.100292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Saliva offers a valuable source of analyte for extracellular vesicle (EV) -based biomarker research, however, due to the complex composition of saliva, the isolation of salivary EVs remains technically challenging. The aim of our study is to systematically compare three salivary EV isolation techniques by assessing the obtained EV sample quality and quantity, and to highlight differences between the three methods with respect to costs, isolation time, and potential for parallel sample handling (i.e. sample throughput). For the enrichment of EVs we used three EV isolation techniques with saliva samples of four healthy donors: polymer precipitation (PP), membrane affinity (MA), and size exclusion chromatography (SEC). The vesicles obtained were characterized via transmission electron microscopy (TEM), SDS-PAGE and Western blot (WB), and conventional nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) and interferometric nanoparticle tracking analysis (iNTA). Our results indicate that all isolation methods resulted in successful enrichment of EVs of similar size distribution. However, we observed differences with respect to vesicle yield and detectability of positive EV markers, potentially reflecting differences in vesicle integrity and sample purity. Assessment of particle number via NTA and iNTA approaches revealed prominent differences in EV number of MA samples but not in the case of samples prepared with other enrichment methods, highlighting the importance of the choice of analysis method. Our study highlights advantages and potential shortcomings of three salivary EV isolation approaches, and calls attention to the importance of multimodal analysis of EV samples, combining approaches for EV marker detection, imaging, NTA and iNTA.
唾液为基于细胞外囊泡(EV)的生物标志物研究提供了宝贵的分析物来源,然而,由于唾液的复杂组成,唾液EVs的分离在技术上仍然具有挑战性。本研究的目的是通过评估获得的唾液EV样品的质量和数量,系统地比较三种唾液EV分离技术,并强调三种方法在成本、分离时间和平行样品处理潜力(即样品吞吐量)方面的差异。为了富集EV,我们使用了四种健康供体唾液样本的EV分离技术:聚合物沉淀(PP)、膜亲和(MA)和尺寸排斥色谱(SEC)。通过透射电子显微镜(TEM)、SDS-PAGE和Western blot (WB)、常规纳米颗粒跟踪分析(NTA)和干涉纳米颗粒跟踪分析(iNTA)对所获得的囊泡进行了表征。我们的结果表明,所有的分离方法都成功地富集了大小分布相似的ev。然而,我们观察到在囊泡产率和阳性EV标记物的可检出性方面存在差异,这可能反映了囊泡完整性和样品纯度的差异。通过NTA和iNTA方法对颗粒数进行评估,发现MA样品的EV数存在显著差异,而其他富集方法制备的样品则没有显著差异,突出了分析方法选择的重要性。我们的研究强调了三种唾液EV分离方法的优势和潜在的不足,并呼吁重视EV样本的多模态分析,结合EV标记物检测、成像、NTA和iNTA方法。