对“超滤纯化间充质基质细胞来源的细胞外小泡”的响应

Anders Toftegaard Boysen PhD
{"title":"对“超滤纯化间充质基质细胞来源的细胞外小泡”的响应","authors":"Anders Toftegaard Boysen PhD","doi":"10.1002/jex2.70057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>I read the recent article ‘<i>Purification of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived small extracellular vesicles using ultrafiltration</i>’ by Lei et al. (<span>2025</span>) with great interest, as they have thoroughly characterised an ultrafiltration method also used by me (Boysen et al. <span>2024</span>). I would like to weigh in with some of my own experiences and findings on their conclusions. The extracellular vesicle (EV) characterisation techniques (TEM and NTA) used by the authors have size and concentration determination limitations. While TEM does a great job of identifying EVs in their cup-shaped appearance, it is not a great tool in size and concentration determination, as the amount of EVs present is few and they have been dried, thereby having lost their true size and morphology. Similarly, NTA has drawbacks as EVs have a low refractive index, the limit of detection is regarded to be around 50 nm (Dragovic et al. <span>2011</span>), leading to a potentially skewed size profile and reduced particle concentration. The study of Lei et al. is therefore at risk of not showing a potential loss of sub-50 nm EVs using ultrafiltration and their specified molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) values. While they argue that the pore size of the membranes used is 6.13, 8.84 and 10.48 nm for 100, 300 and 500 kDa MWCO, respectively, this is only true from a theoretical perspective based on the hydrodynamic radius of molecules. The pore size of commercially available filters is <span>not</span> based on theoretical values but trial and error and the <span>average</span> pore size of the selected filters by Lei et al. are 10, 35 and 55 nm for 100, 300 and 500 kDa MWCO respectively as seen in Figure 1 (determined using cryo-EM, personal correspondence with Merck Millipore and as reported by Pall corporation (Pall Corporation <span>2022</span>)). We have translated a copious amount of the knowledge from virology to EV research, as EVs and viruses have many biophysical similarities, and we could also learn from virology in this case. MS2, a icosahedral ∼27 nm bacteriophage, is not retained on a 300 kDa MWCO filter, and can be found in the permeate (Wick and McCubbin <span>1999</span>). While fouling, particle deposition, and potential loss of EVs can be reduced by adding shear force to the membrane, this force will not be homogeneous, and loss will occur (Hwang et al. <span>2016</span>; Zhao et al. <span>2023</span>). Cryo-EM, in contrast to TEM and NTA, can show sub-50 nm particles in their native state (Yuana et al. <span>2013</span>). As a true size distribution of an EV sample, I have made individual measurements of 130 EVs derived from human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293T) cultured in chemically defined media (HEK VIP NX, Satorius) and enriched using size exclusion chromatography (35 nm, Izon) on a 100 kDa MWCO spin filter (Thermo Fisher) as shown below.\n\n </p><p>Cryo-EM tends to exclude some of the larger EVs (Welsh et al. <span>2024</span>) and I have also excluded a few of the largest asymmetrical EVs in my measurements, the size distribution of these HEK293T EVs is in line with what has previously been reported (Zabeo et al. <span>2017</span>). This data shows that a large population of EVs are at risk of being lost at the larger MWCO filters used by Lei et al., which they cannot show with the methods they used in their manuscript. The stirred cell system utilised by Lei et al. and I is a powerful tool for scaling up from the small-scale and labour-intensive spin filters in an academic setting without investing in industrial or expensive large-scale solutions. While larger MWCO filters for this system seem attractive as they can reduce protein contaminants, this can come with the risk of losing small EVs that could carry valuable information as biomarkers or harbour biologically active payloads of key interest (Willis et al. <span>2017</span>). I therefore highly encourage that more sensitive sizing tools are needed, like cryo-EM or atomic force microscopy (Zabeo et al. <span>2017</span>; Ridolfi et al. <span>2020</span>), before it can be concluded that the proposed methods of Lei et al. are good for small EV purification, as they have effectively not measured up to half of the small EVs in their purifications. Although these would not be biophysically identical, labelled sub-50 nm EV mimetics, liposomes or beads could also be used to validate whether the membranes can retain these.</p><p>I declare that I have no competing or conflicting interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":73747,"journal":{"name":"Journal of extracellular biology","volume":"4 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jex2.70057","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to ‘Purification of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Derived Small Extracellular Vesicles Using Ultrafiltration’\",\"authors\":\"Anders Toftegaard Boysen PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jex2.70057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>I read the recent article ‘<i>Purification of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived small extracellular vesicles using ultrafiltration</i>’ by Lei et al. (<span>2025</span>) with great interest, as they have thoroughly characterised an ultrafiltration method also used by me (Boysen et al. <span>2024</span>). I would like to weigh in with some of my own experiences and findings on their conclusions. The extracellular vesicle (EV) characterisation techniques (TEM and NTA) used by the authors have size and concentration determination limitations. While TEM does a great job of identifying EVs in their cup-shaped appearance, it is not a great tool in size and concentration determination, as the amount of EVs present is few and they have been dried, thereby having lost their true size and morphology. Similarly, NTA has drawbacks as EVs have a low refractive index, the limit of detection is regarded to be around 50 nm (Dragovic et al. <span>2011</span>), leading to a potentially skewed size profile and reduced particle concentration. The study of Lei et al. is therefore at risk of not showing a potential loss of sub-50 nm EVs using ultrafiltration and their specified molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) values. While they argue that the pore size of the membranes used is 6.13, 8.84 and 10.48 nm for 100, 300 and 500 kDa MWCO, respectively, this is only true from a theoretical perspective based on the hydrodynamic radius of molecules. The pore size of commercially available filters is <span>not</span> based on theoretical values but trial and error and the <span>average</span> pore size of the selected filters by Lei et al. are 10, 35 and 55 nm for 100, 300 and 500 kDa MWCO respectively as seen in Figure 1 (determined using cryo-EM, personal correspondence with Merck Millipore and as reported by Pall corporation (Pall Corporation <span>2022</span>)). We have translated a copious amount of the knowledge from virology to EV research, as EVs and viruses have many biophysical similarities, and we could also learn from virology in this case. MS2, a icosahedral ∼27 nm bacteriophage, is not retained on a 300 kDa MWCO filter, and can be found in the permeate (Wick and McCubbin <span>1999</span>). While fouling, particle deposition, and potential loss of EVs can be reduced by adding shear force to the membrane, this force will not be homogeneous, and loss will occur (Hwang et al. <span>2016</span>; Zhao et al. <span>2023</span>). Cryo-EM, in contrast to TEM and NTA, can show sub-50 nm particles in their native state (Yuana et al. <span>2013</span>). As a true size distribution of an EV sample, I have made individual measurements of 130 EVs derived from human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293T) cultured in chemically defined media (HEK VIP NX, Satorius) and enriched using size exclusion chromatography (35 nm, Izon) on a 100 kDa MWCO spin filter (Thermo Fisher) as shown below.\\n\\n </p><p>Cryo-EM tends to exclude some of the larger EVs (Welsh et al. <span>2024</span>) and I have also excluded a few of the largest asymmetrical EVs in my measurements, the size distribution of these HEK293T EVs is in line with what has previously been reported (Zabeo et al. <span>2017</span>). This data shows that a large population of EVs are at risk of being lost at the larger MWCO filters used by Lei et al., which they cannot show with the methods they used in their manuscript. The stirred cell system utilised by Lei et al. and I is a powerful tool for scaling up from the small-scale and labour-intensive spin filters in an academic setting without investing in industrial or expensive large-scale solutions. While larger MWCO filters for this system seem attractive as they can reduce protein contaminants, this can come with the risk of losing small EVs that could carry valuable information as biomarkers or harbour biologically active payloads of key interest (Willis et al. <span>2017</span>). I therefore highly encourage that more sensitive sizing tools are needed, like cryo-EM or atomic force microscopy (Zabeo et al. <span>2017</span>; Ridolfi et al. <span>2020</span>), before it can be concluded that the proposed methods of Lei et al. are good for small EV purification, as they have effectively not measured up to half of the small EVs in their purifications. Although these would not be biophysically identical, labelled sub-50 nm EV mimetics, liposomes or beads could also be used to validate whether the membranes can retain these.</p><p>I declare that I have no competing or conflicting interests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of extracellular biology\",\"volume\":\"4 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jex2.70057\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of extracellular biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jex2.70057\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of extracellular biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jex2.70057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我非常感兴趣地阅读了Lei等人(2025)最近的一篇文章“使用超滤纯化间充质基质细胞衍生的细胞外小泡”,因为他们彻底地描述了我也使用的超滤方法(Boysen等人,2024)。我想就他们的结论发表一些我自己的经验和发现。作者使用的细胞外囊泡(EV)表征技术(TEM和NTA)具有大小和浓度测定的局限性。虽然TEM可以很好地识别杯状的电动汽车,但它在大小和浓度测定方面不是一个很好的工具,因为存在的电动汽车数量很少,而且它们已经干燥,因此失去了其真实的大小和形态。同样,NTA也有缺点,因为电动汽车的折射率很低,检测极限被认为在50 nm左右(Dragovic et al. 2011),这可能会导致尺寸曲线倾斜和颗粒浓度降低。因此,Lei等人的研究有可能无法显示使用超滤及其指定的分子量截止值(MWCO)对低于50 nm的ev的潜在损失。虽然他们认为,对于100、300和500 kDa MWCO,所使用的膜的孔径分别为6.13、8.84和10.48 nm,但这仅仅是从基于分子流体动力学半径的理论角度来看是正确的。商用过滤器的孔径不是基于理论值,而是基于试验和错误,Lei等人选择的过滤器的平均孔径分别为10、35和55 nm,分别为100、300和500 kDa MWCO,如图1所示(使用低温电镜测定,与默克密理博的个人通信,由Pall公司报告(Pall公司2022))。我们已经将大量的病毒学知识转化为EV研究,因为EV和病毒在生物物理上有许多相似之处,在这种情况下我们也可以从病毒学中学习。MS2是一种二十面体~ 27纳米的噬菌体,不保留在300 kDa的MWCO过滤器上,可以在渗透液中找到(Wick和McCubbin 1999)。虽然可以通过向膜施加剪切力来减少污染、颗粒沉积和电动汽车的潜在损失,但这种力不是均匀的,并且会发生损失(Hwang et al. 2016;Zhao et al. 2023)。与TEM和NTA相比,Cryo-EM可以显示低于50 nm的原始状态颗粒(Yuana et al. 2013)。作为EV样本的真实尺寸分布,我对130个EV进行了单独测量,这些EV来自于在化学定义培养基(HEK VIP NX, Satorius)中培养的人胚胎肾细胞(HEK293T),并在100 kDa MWCO自旋过滤器(Thermo Fisher)上使用尺寸排除层析(35 nm, Izon)进行富集,如下图所示。Cryo-EM倾向于排除一些较大的电动汽车(Welsh等人,2024),我也在我的测量中排除了一些最大的不对称电动汽车,这些HEK293T电动汽车的尺寸分布与之前报道的一致(Zabeo等人,2017)。该数据表明,Lei等人使用的较大的MWCO过滤器有大量ev丢失的风险,而他们在论文中使用的方法无法显示这一点。Lei等人和我使用的搅拌槽系统是一个强大的工具,可以在学术环境中从小型和劳动密集型的旋转过滤器扩展,而无需投资工业或昂贵的大规模解决方案。虽然该系统的较大MWCO过滤器看起来很有吸引力,因为它们可以减少蛋白质污染物,但这可能会带来失去小型电动汽车的风险,而小型电动汽车可能携带有价值的信息作为生物标志物,或携带关键感兴趣的生物活性有效载荷(Willis等人,2017)。因此,我强烈建议需要更灵敏的尺寸工具,如冷冻电镜或原子力显微镜(Zabeo等人,2017;Ridolfi et al. 2020),然后才能得出Lei等人提出的方法对小型电动汽车净化有益的结论,因为他们在净化中实际上没有测量到多达一半的小型电动汽车。虽然这些物质在生物物理上不相同,但标记在50纳米以下的EV模拟物、脂质体或微球也可以用来验证膜是否可以保留这些物质。我声明我没有相互竞争或冲突的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Response to ‘Purification of Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Derived Small Extracellular Vesicles Using Ultrafiltration’

Dear Editor,

I read the recent article ‘Purification of mesenchymal stromal cell-derived small extracellular vesicles using ultrafiltration’ by Lei et al. (2025) with great interest, as they have thoroughly characterised an ultrafiltration method also used by me (Boysen et al. 2024). I would like to weigh in with some of my own experiences and findings on their conclusions. The extracellular vesicle (EV) characterisation techniques (TEM and NTA) used by the authors have size and concentration determination limitations. While TEM does a great job of identifying EVs in their cup-shaped appearance, it is not a great tool in size and concentration determination, as the amount of EVs present is few and they have been dried, thereby having lost their true size and morphology. Similarly, NTA has drawbacks as EVs have a low refractive index, the limit of detection is regarded to be around 50 nm (Dragovic et al. 2011), leading to a potentially skewed size profile and reduced particle concentration. The study of Lei et al. is therefore at risk of not showing a potential loss of sub-50 nm EVs using ultrafiltration and their specified molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) values. While they argue that the pore size of the membranes used is 6.13, 8.84 and 10.48 nm for 100, 300 and 500 kDa MWCO, respectively, this is only true from a theoretical perspective based on the hydrodynamic radius of molecules. The pore size of commercially available filters is not based on theoretical values but trial and error and the average pore size of the selected filters by Lei et al. are 10, 35 and 55 nm for 100, 300 and 500 kDa MWCO respectively as seen in Figure 1 (determined using cryo-EM, personal correspondence with Merck Millipore and as reported by Pall corporation (Pall Corporation 2022)). We have translated a copious amount of the knowledge from virology to EV research, as EVs and viruses have many biophysical similarities, and we could also learn from virology in this case. MS2, a icosahedral ∼27 nm bacteriophage, is not retained on a 300 kDa MWCO filter, and can be found in the permeate (Wick and McCubbin 1999). While fouling, particle deposition, and potential loss of EVs can be reduced by adding shear force to the membrane, this force will not be homogeneous, and loss will occur (Hwang et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2023). Cryo-EM, in contrast to TEM and NTA, can show sub-50 nm particles in their native state (Yuana et al. 2013). As a true size distribution of an EV sample, I have made individual measurements of 130 EVs derived from human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293T) cultured in chemically defined media (HEK VIP NX, Satorius) and enriched using size exclusion chromatography (35 nm, Izon) on a 100 kDa MWCO spin filter (Thermo Fisher) as shown below.

Cryo-EM tends to exclude some of the larger EVs (Welsh et al. 2024) and I have also excluded a few of the largest asymmetrical EVs in my measurements, the size distribution of these HEK293T EVs is in line with what has previously been reported (Zabeo et al. 2017). This data shows that a large population of EVs are at risk of being lost at the larger MWCO filters used by Lei et al., which they cannot show with the methods they used in their manuscript. The stirred cell system utilised by Lei et al. and I is a powerful tool for scaling up from the small-scale and labour-intensive spin filters in an academic setting without investing in industrial or expensive large-scale solutions. While larger MWCO filters for this system seem attractive as they can reduce protein contaminants, this can come with the risk of losing small EVs that could carry valuable information as biomarkers or harbour biologically active payloads of key interest (Willis et al. 2017). I therefore highly encourage that more sensitive sizing tools are needed, like cryo-EM or atomic force microscopy (Zabeo et al. 2017; Ridolfi et al. 2020), before it can be concluded that the proposed methods of Lei et al. are good for small EV purification, as they have effectively not measured up to half of the small EVs in their purifications. Although these would not be biophysically identical, labelled sub-50 nm EV mimetics, liposomes or beads could also be used to validate whether the membranes can retain these.

I declare that I have no competing or conflicting interests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信