Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2019-12-09T13:42:07Z
dc.date.available2019-12-09T13:42:07Z
dc.date.created2018-12-14T08:18:30Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationSkottvoll, Frøydis Sved Berg, Henriette Engen Bjørseth, Kamilla Lund, Kaja Roos, Norbert Bekhradnia, Sara Thiede, Bernd Sandberg, Cecilie Vik-Mo, Einar O. Røberg-Larsen, Hanne Nyström, Bo Lundanes, Elsa Wilson, Steven Ray Haakon . Ultracentrifugation versus kit exosome isolation: nanoLC–MS and other tools reveal similar performance biomarkers, but also contaminations. Future science OA. 2018
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/71427
dc.description.abstractAim: For isolation of exosomes, differential ultracentrifugation and an isolation kit from a major vendor were compared. Materials & methods: ‘Case study’ exosomes isolated from patient-derived cells from glioblastoma multiforme and a breast cancer cell line were analyzed. Results: Transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering, western blotting, and so forth, revealed comparable performance. Potential protein biomarkers for both diseases were also identified in the isolates using nanoLC–MS. Western blotting and nanoLC–MS also revealed negative exosome markers regarding both isolation approaches. Conclusion: The two isolation methods had an overall similar performance, but we hesitate to use the term ‘exosome isolation’ as impurities may be present with both isolation methods. NanoLC–MS can detect disease biomarkers in exosomes and is useful for critical assessment of exosome enrichment procedures.
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherFuture Science Ltd.
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleUltracentrifugation versus kit exosome isolation: nanoLC–MS and other tools reveal similar performance biomarkers, but also contaminations
dc.typeJournal article
dc.creator.authorSkottvoll, Frøydis Sved
dc.creator.authorBerg, Henriette Engen
dc.creator.authorBjørseth, Kamilla
dc.creator.authorLund, Kaja
dc.creator.authorRoos, Norbert
dc.creator.authorBekhradnia, Sara
dc.creator.authorThiede, Bernd
dc.creator.authorSandberg, Cecilie
dc.creator.authorVik-Mo, Einar O.
dc.creator.authorRøberg-Larsen, Hanne
dc.creator.authorNyström, Bo
dc.creator.authorLundanes, Elsa
dc.creator.authorWilson, Steven Ray Haakon
cristin.unitcode185,15,12,63
cristin.unitnameSeksjon for kjemisk livsvitenskap - biomolekyler, bio-inspirerte materialer og bioanalytisk kjemi
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.cristin1643067
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Future science OA&rft.volume=&rft.spage=&rft.date=2018
dc.identifier.jtitleFuture science OA
dc.identifier.pagecount12
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.4155/fsoa-2018-0088
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-74554
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn2056-5623
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/71427/2/Ultracentrifugation%2Bversus%2Bkit%2Bexosome%2Bisolation.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International