Comparison of nanoimaging and nanoflow based detection of extracellular vesicles at a single particle resolution

纳米成像和基于纳米流的单粒子分辨率细胞外囊泡检测比较

阅读:13
作者:Shihan Xu, Zhengrong Zhang, Bridgette C Melvin, Nibedita Basu Ray, Seiko Ikezu, Tsuneya Ikezu

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

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。