Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics
A total of 6 participants were enrolled in this exploratory study, comprising 3 breast cancer patients and 3 healthy controls. Based on the clinical data collected, the mean age of the breast cancer case group was 55.0 years, compared to 49.67 years in the control group. Statistical comparisons revealed no significant differences between the two cohorts regarding age, menstrual status, marital status, and the prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes mellitus (all P > 0.05). However, given the limited sample size, these statistical comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, the detailed clinicopathological characteristics, treatment statuses, and baseline metabolic conditions of the sequenced breast cancer cohort are comprehensively summarized in Table 2.
Morphological identification of exosomes by electron microscopy
Electron microscopy identified characteristic exosomal structures: lipid-bilayer vesicles (40-160 nm) displaying cup-shaped morphology (Figure 1A,B)19. NTA quantification showed that >80% of particles were in the 40–160 nm size range at suitable concentrations. Collectively, these analyses confirmed that isolated exosomes met the purity and concentration requirements (Figure 1C–F)20.
Differential expression of exosomal miRNAs
Comparative analysis of case-control exosomal miRNA sequencing data revealed differentially expressed species. A total of 265 miRNAs showed differential expression (|log₂ Fold Change | > 1, adjusted P < 0.05), with 76.6% (203/265) upregulated and 23.4% (62/265) downregulated. The differentially expressed miRNAs comprised 47 named miRNAs and 218 unnamed miRNAs. Among the named miRNAs, 20 were downregulated, and 27 were upregulated (Table 3). The unnamed miRNAs included 176 upregulated and 42 downregulated.
Among the upregulated miRNAs, differences in the expression of hsa-miR-6866-5p (Log2FC = 7.42, adjusted P = 0.000560), hsa-miR-376c-3p (Log2FC = 9.13, adjusted P = 0.002789), hsa-miR-656-3p (Log2FC = 9.84, adjusted P = 0.001455), and hsa-miR-641 (Log2FC = 9.60, adjusted P = 0.001720) were the most significant. In the downregulated group, the miRNAs with the most noticeable differences in expression were hsa-miR-519a-5p (Log2FC = -9.54, adjusted P = 0.000593), hsa-miR-519b-5p (Log2FC = -9.54, adjusted P = 0.000593), hsa-miR-518e-5p (Log2FC = -9.54, adjusted P = 0.000593), hsa-miR-522-5p (Log2FC = -9.54, P = adjusted 0.000593), and hsa-miR-523-5p (Log2FC = −9.54, adjusted P = 0.000593) (Figure 2). hsa-miR-519a-5p, hsa-miR-519b-5p, hsa-miR-518e-5p, hsa-miR-522-5p and hsa-miR-523-5p shared a seed sequence.
Importantly, these differential expression profiles were derived exclusively from high-throughput sequencing data. At this stage, independent experimental validation (e.g., via RT-qPCR) has not been performed to verify the expression levels of these key candidate miRNAs. Therefore, these findings represent preliminary computational predictions rather than experimentally validated results.
Cluster analysis of differential exosomal miRNAs
To explore the functional roles of miRNAs with shared or comparable characteristics, we conducted a functional clustering analysis on the top 47 named and top 50 unnamed differentially expressed miRNAs (Figure 3A,B). The analysis revealed a significant enrichment of hsa-miR-6866-5p in the breast cancer group as compared with the controls. Conversely, hsa-miR-6780a-5p and hsa-miR-4433a-3p were markedly downregulated in the control group (Figure 3A).
GO analysis of target genes
Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses were performed on a comprehensive pooled dataset of target genes predicted to interact with the differentially expressed miRNAs. While the absolute integer of this global input pool was unarchived due to automated pipeline constraints, our highly rigorous three-database intersection strategy yielded exactly 4, 2, 42, and 3 consensus target genes for the most critical representative candidates (hsa-miR-6866-5p, hsa-miR-376c-3p, hsa-miR-641, and the hsa-miR-519 cluster, respectively), which drive the primary functional interpretations. To account for false discovery rates, multiple testing correction was applied using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) method. These analyses were based entirely on in silico-predicted regulatory relationships between the miRNAs and their target genes. The enrichment analyses for the target gene sets were conducted using the clusterProfiler software package. The GO analysis encompasses three domains: biological process (BP), cellular component (CC), and molecular function (MF). In total, the analysis identified 8,334 significantly enriched GO terms (adjusted P < 0.05), comprising 6,339 in the BP domain, 758 in the CC domain, and 1,237 in the molecular function (MF) domain.
Using the adjusted P-value (FDR) as the significance criterion, the top ten enriched GO terms from each category (BP, CC, and MF) were selected for further analysis. In the BP category, these functions included vesicle-mediated synaptic transport, axonogenesis, synaptic vesicle cycle, calcium ion transport, response to nutrient levels, carbohydrate derivative transport, protein autophosphorylation, modulation of chemical synaptic transmission, regulation of trans-synaptic signals, and regulation of neurotransmitter receptor activity. GO-CC enrichment analysis revealed that the predicted target genes of breast cancer exosomal miRNAs were predominantly associated with membrane-bound organelles, synapse-related structures, and cell migration-related compartments. The most highly represented terms were vacuolar membrane (n = 206), neuronal cell body (n = 203), lysosomal membrane (n=190), and lytic vacuole membrane (n = 190). Significant enrichment was also observed in cell leading edge (n = 172), glutamatergic synapse (n = 164), neuron-to-neuron synapse (n = 154), asymmetric synapse (n = 138), distal axon (n = 130), and cell cortex (n = 130). Among these terms, vacuolar and lysosomal membrane-related components exhibited relatively strong enrichment signals, suggesting that the target genes may be involved in lysosome–vacuole-associated membrane trafficking, intracellular degradation, cytoskeletal remodeling, and intercellular signal transduction. In the MF category, the functions included regulation of cell morphogenesis, GTPase regulator activity, nucleoside-triphosphatase regulator activity, phospholipid binding, carbohydrate derivative transmembrane transport protein activity, nucleobase-containing compound transmembrane transporter capacity, the role of guanyl-nucleotide exchange factors, monosaccharide binding capacity, protein serine/threonine kinase function, GTPase activator activity, and calmodulin binding (Figure 4). It should be explicitly noted that these GO annotations are bioinformatics predictions and have not yet been validated by targeted biological functional assays.
KEGG pathway analysis
To identify the primary significantly enriched biochemical and signaling pathways, a KEGG pathway analysis was conducted. Of the 338 significantly enriched pathways identified, the top 20 by gene count were selected for further examination. The results showed that these pathways were predominantly mapped to Rap1, phospholipase D, oxytocin, sphingolipid, neurotrophin, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling (Figure 5). Given that these enrichments are based on bioinformatic predictions, these findings generate preliminary hypotheses regarding the miRNA-related signaling pathways and molecular functions, which may help to reveal the pathogenesis of breast cancer and facilitate further experimental validation.
MicroRNA Venn diagram analysis
To systematically investigate the potential downstream mechanisms, we selected three representative upregulated miRNAs (hsa-miR-6866-5p, hsa-miR-376c-3p, and hsa-miR-641) along with the downregulated miRNA cluster, and employed a combined approach using three databases (TargetScan, miRDB, and miRWalk) to predict their downstream target genes. An intersection analysis was subsequently performed to identify the target genes common to all three databases for each miRNA (Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8). As shown in Figure 6, four genes (RNF38, KCNN3, ISG20L2, and SGMS2) were commonly identified by TargetScan, miRWalk, and miRDB as targets of hsa-miR-6866-5p. As shown in Figure 7, only two genes (THSD7A and OTUD4) were common across all three databases for hsa-miR-376c-3p. As shown in Figure 8, for hsa-miR-641, 42 genes were identified at the intersection of all three databases. These consensus target genes were: RTF1, SEC14L1, BXN4, PPP1R9A, GNG12, NR2C2, FAM126B, FDX1, BDP1, CBX1, NF1, PDE4D, DTWD2, GSK3B, TRIM6, EIF4E, TMBIM1, NTRK2, NEO1, PPP2R2A, FBXL17, CAMK4, FGF13, NREP, AFTPH, TLE4, MBNL2, GPR180, SKP1, SCML2, TCF12, TP53INP2, UHMK1, PRPF4B, COPS2, VEZF1, TRIM49, ERCC6, TRIM10, PRSS16, PSME3, and LMBR1. As shown in Figure 9, hsa-miR-519a-5p shares a seed sequence with hsa-miR-519b-5p, hsa-miR-518e-5p, hsa-miR-522-5p, and hsa-miR-523-5p. The target genes of these miRNAs, as predicted by TargetScan, miRWalk, and miRDB, were NPL, HMGB3, and ATE1.
DATA AVAILABILITY:
The raw sequencing data will be deposited immediately in an appropriate public repository (e.g., GEO or SRA), and the corresponding accession numbers will be updated and made publicly accessible.

Figure 1: Characterization of isolated serum exosomes. (A,B) Representative TEM images showing the typical bilayer cup-shaped morphology of the isolated serum exosomes. Scale bar = 100 nm. (C,D) NTA measures the size distribution and concentration of the extracted vesicles. (E,F) Representative screenshots of exosome particles captured during the NTA video recording. Exosomes were isolated from serum samples of breast cancer patients and healthy controls. The sample size was n = 3 biologically independent samples per group. Due to the observational nature of TEM and NTA, representative images and distribution plots from the biological replicates are shown. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Volcano plot of differentially expressed miRNAs. The plot visualizes the global distribution of differentially expressed miRNAs between breast cancer and healthy control groups, based on RNA sequencing data. Differential expression analysis was performed using the DESeq2 package (Wald test). The sample size was n = 3 biologically independent samples per group. The significance thresholds were strictly set at |log₂ (fold change)| > 1 and adjusted p < 0.05. Red points indicate significantly upregulated miRNAs (n = 203), green points indicate significantly downregulated miRNAs (n = 62), and blue points represent non-significant miRNAs. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Hierarchical clustering heatmaps of differentially expressed miRNAs. (A,B) Heatmaps displaying the expression profiles of the top differentially expressed miRNAs across all individual samples. Each column represents a biologically independent sample (n = 3 per group, total n = 6), and each row represents an individual miRNA. The hierarchical clustering was performed based on normalized expression levels. The color scale reflects Z-score-transformed expression values, with red indicating relatively high expression and blue relatively low. Statistical significance for inclusion in the heatmap was determined using DESeq2 with an adjusted p-value < 0.05. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis of target genes. The bar chart illustrates the significantly enriched GO terms categorized into biological process (BP, yellow), cellular component (CC, orange), and molecular function (MF, purple) for the predicted target genes of the differentially expressed miRNAs. Enrichment analysis was performed using the clusterProfiler package based on the hypergeometric distribution test. The sample size for the upstream RNA-seq data input was n = 3 biologically independent samples per group. The length of the bars corresponds to the gene count and the -log₁₀(p-value). The statistical significance threshold for enriched terms was set at adjusted p < 0.05. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of target genes. The dot plot displays the top significantly enriched Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathways for the predicted target genes. The x-axis represents the GeneRatio (the ratio of target genes mapped to a pathway versus the total background genes). The size of the dots indicates the number of target genes mapped to each pathway (Count), and the color gradient from blue to red represents the adjusted p-value (p.adjust). Enrichment analysis was conducted using the clusterProfiler package (hypergeometric test). Statistical significance was defined as adjusted p < 0.05. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Predicted target genes of hsa-miR-6866-5p. The target genes of hsa-miR-6866-5p, as predicted by TargetScan, miRWalk, and miRDB, were RNF38, KCNN3, ISG20L2, and SGMS2. The central overlap highlights the 4 core target genes robustly identified by all three prediction algorithms, thereby minimizing false-positive predictions. As this figure represents an in silico intersection of database predictions rather than continuous quantitative data, statistical error bars and significance thresholds (p-values) are not applicable. The upstream input miRNAs used for this prediction were derived from the RNA-seq differential expression analysis (n = 3 biologically independent samples per group, identified by DESeq2 with adjusted p < 0.05). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Predicted target genes of hsa-miR-376c-3p. The target genes of hsa-miR-376c-3p, as predicted by TargetScan, miRWalk, and miRDB, were THSD7A and OTUD4. The central overlap highlights the 2 core target genes that are robustly identified by all 3 prediction algorithms, effectively minimizing false-positive predictions. As this figure represents an in silico intersection of database predictions rather than continuous quantitative data, statistical error bars and significance thresholds (p-values) are not applicable. The upstream input miRNAs used for this prediction were derived from the RNA-seq differential expression analysis (n = 3 biologically independent samples per group, identified by DESeq2 with adjusted p < 0.05). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: Predicted target genes of hsa-miR-641. The target genes of hsa-miR-641 predicted by TargetScan, miRWalk, and miRDB were RTF1, SEC14L1, BXN4, PPP1R9A, GNG12, NR2C2, FAM126B, FDX1, BDP1, CBX1, NF1, PDE4D, DTWD2, GSK3B, TRIM6, EIF4E, TMBIM1, NTRK2, NEO1, PPP2R2A, FBXL17, CAMK4, FGF13, NREP, AFTPH, TLE4, MBNL2, GPR180, SKP1, SCML2, TCF12, TP53INP2, UHMK1, PRPF4B, COPS2, VEZF1, TRIM49, ERCC6, TRIM10, PRSS16, PSME3, LMBR1. The central overlap highlights the 42 core target genes robustly identified by all three prediction algorithms, thereby minimizing false-positive predictions. As this figure represents an in silico intersection of database predictions rather than continuous quantitative data, statistical error bars and significance thresholds (p-values) are not applicable. The upstream input miRNAs used for this prediction were derived from our RNA-seq differential expression analysis (n = 3 biologically independent samples per group, identified by DESeq2 with adjusted p < 0.05). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 9: Predicted target genes of hsa-miR-519a-5p sharing a seed sequence with hsa-miR-519b-5p, hsa-miR-518e-5p, hsa-miR-522-5p, and hsa-miR-523-5p. The target genes of hsa-miR-519a-5p, as predicted by TargetScan, miRWalk, and miRDB, were NPL, HMGB3, and ATE1. The central overlap highlights the 3 core target genes robustly identified by all 3 prediction algorithms, thereby minimizing false-positive predictions. As this figure represents an in silico intersection of database predictions rather than continuous quantitative data, statistical error bars and significance thresholds (p-values) are not applicable. The upstream input miRNAs used for this prediction were derived from our RNA-seq differential expression analysis (n = 3 biologically independent samples per group, identified by DESeq2 with adjusted p < 0.05). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Case number | Age(year) | Menstruation | Marriage | Hypertension | Dyslipidemia | Diabetes |
| 1 | 62 | N | Y | N | N | N |
| 2 | 45 | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| 3 | 58 | N | Y | N | N | N |
| 4 | 46 | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| 5 | 52 | N | Y | N | N | N |
| 6 | 51 | Y | Y | N | N | N |
Table 1: Clinical information of case and control groups. This table summarizes the baseline demographic data, including age, menstrual status, marital history, and the presence of metabolic comorbidities (such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus) for all participants recruited in this study. Cases 1–3 belong to the case group, and cases 4–6 belong to the control group. Yes(Y), No(N).
| Clinicopathological Variables | Patient 1 | Patient 2 | Patient 3 |
| Age (years) | 62 | 45 | 58 |
| Height (cm) / Weight (kg) | 150 / 59 | 151 / 45 | 160 / 54 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.22 (Overweight) | 19.73 (Normal) | 21.09 (Normal) |
| Past Medical History | Spinal internal fixation (2020) | None | None |
| Inflammatory / Metabolic Conditions | Mild tricuspid regurgitation, mild pulmonary hypertension, hyperviscosity | Uterine fibroids, left renal cyst, pulmonary proliferative lesions | Hypocalcemia, mild anemia, intrahepatic bile duct stones |
| Histological Subtype | Invasive carcinoma, NOS | Invasive carcinoma, NOS | Invasive ductal carcinoma |
| Histological Grade | Grade III (8 points) | Not evaluated (limited cellularity from biopsy) | Not specified |
| Tumour Stage (TNM) | pT1N0M0 (Stage IA) | cT2N1M0 (Stage IIB) | pT1N0M0 (Stage IA) |
| ER Status | Positive (90%, strong) | Negative | Positive (100%, strong) |
| PR Status | Positive (80-90%, strong) | Negative | Positive (95%, strong) |
| HER2 Status | 2+ (Equivocal) | 3+ (Positive) | 1+ (Negative) |
| Ki-67 Proliferation Index | 10% - 20% | ~20% | 20% |
| Molecular Subtype | Luminal A | HR- / HER2+ | Luminal A |
| Metastatic Status | N0 (0/7 lymph nodes), M0 | cN1 (Axillary & infraclavicular), M0 | N0 (Sentinel lymph node), M0 |
| Treatment Status and Medication | Post-operative (Breast-conserving surgery); Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC regimen) | Pre-operative; Neoadjuvant targeted + chemotherapy (TCbHP regimen) | Post-operative (Modified radical mastectomy); Endocrine therapy |
Table 2: Clinicopathological characteristics of the sequenced breast cancer cohort. This table provides specific clinical parameters, treatment statuses, and baseline metabolic conditions for the individual breast cancer patients included in the sequencing discovery cohort. BMI, body mass index; NOS, not otherwise specified; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HR, hormone receptor; AC, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; TCbHP, docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab.
| Expression level | miRNA | Logarithmic value of difference multiple | Adjusted P-value |
| Upregulation | hsa-miR-4638-5p | 7.71187292 | 0.01486175 |
| hsa-miR-766-3p | 6.271111005 | 0.03735488 |
| hsa-miR-487b-3p | 8.082615814 | 0.009566343 |
| hsa-miR-6799-5p | 20.99585902 | 3.58E-08 |
| hsa-miR-641 | 9.603470975 | 0.001720169 |
| hsa-miR-3912-3p | 7.752573932 | 0.014009353 |
| hsa-miR-376c-3p | 9.133311681 | 0.002789221 |
| hsa-miR-3164 | 7.717783419 | 0.015674626 |
| hsa-miR-6791-5p | 7.219439787 | 0.033914259 |
| hsa-miR-431-5p | 8.059912522 | 0.010856777 |
| hsa-miR-2115-3p | 6.876651722 | 0.038924319 |
| hsa-miR-6780a-5p | 5.004777809 | 0.029282505 |
| hsa-miR-3187-5p | 7.721883238 | 0.015732193 |
| hsa-miR-323a-5p | 5.556742741 | 0.018750878 |
| hsa-miR-380-5p | 7.234685332 | 0.011827018 |
| hsa-miR-7848-3p | 7.874635775 | 0.014750769 |
| hsa-miR-656-3p | 9.843639019 | 0.001454648 |
| hsa-miR-6847-3p | 7.139595947 | 0.029000522 |
| hsa-miR-676-3p | 8.115833962 | 0.00972282 |
| hsa-miR-6726-3p | 7.441718892 | 0.021107377 |
| hsa-miR-369-3p | 7.602368739 | 0.007346394 |
| hsa-miR-3154 | 7.026638915 | 0.033350319 |
| hsa-miR-9903 | 7.989717338 | 0.011060692 |
| hsa-miR-4470 | 7.344674892 | 0.02413619 |
| hsa-miR-4433a-3p | 4.038819788 | 0.028077846 |
| hsa-miR-195-5p | 4.539922797 | 0.041320108 |
| hsa-miR-6866-5p | 7.417352142 | 0.000560071 |
| Downregulation | hsa-miR-522-5p | -9.544946827 | 0.000592779 |
| hsa-miR-329-5p | -6.36962291 | 0.038461531 |
| hsa-miR-491-5p | -8.182607225 | 0.009558727 |
| hsa-miR-4449 | -8.98858912 | 0.004611801 |
| hsa-miR-3918 | -10.21148114 | 0.001116194 |
| hsa-miR-7704 | -8.267124595 | 0.004062025 |
| hsa-miR-5010-3p | -8.368067553 | 0.006683773 |
| hsa-miR-6765-5p | -9.233784132 | 0.003219551 |
| hsa-miR-518e-5p | -9.544946827 | 0.000592779 |
| hsa-miR-4489 | -8.725867461 | 0.004839167 |
| hsa-miR-6837-3p | -8.78942955 | 0.005205453 |
| hsa-miR-519a-5p | -9.544946827 | 0.000592779 |
| hsa-miR-4745-5p | -5.572569537 | 0.018825297 |
| hsa-miR-6861-5p | -9.173867125 | 0.003195183 |
| hsa-miR-147b-3p | -8.007389083 | 0.010157908 |
| hsa-miR-523-5p | -9.544946827 | 0.000592779 |
| hsa-miR-505-3p | -9.359786734 | 0.002695893 |
| hsa-miR-4753-5p | -8.200773573 | 0.010345874 |
| hsa-miR-519b-5p | -9.544946827 | 0.000592779 |
| hsa-miR-519c-5p | -9.544946827 | 0.000592779 |
Table 3: Expression levels of named miRNAs in exosomes among the case and control groups. This table lists the detailed differential expression profiles of named miRNAs in plasma exosomes between the breast cancer and healthy control groups, including their regulation status, logarithmic fold changes (Log2FC), and statistically adjusted P-values.