$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
According to MISEV 2018, sEVs are non-replicating lipid bilayer particles with no functional nucleus present, with a size of 30-200 nm1. MSC-derived sEVs contain important signaling molecules that play important roles in tissue regeneration, such as microRNA, cytokines, or proteins. They have increasingly become a research "hotspot" in regenerative medicine and cell-free therapy. Many studies have shown that MSC-derived sEVs are as effective as MSCs in treating different conditions, such as immunomodulation2,3,4,5, enhancing osteogenesis6, diabetes mellitus7,8, or vascular regeneration9,10. As early phase trials progress, three main key issues in relation to the clinical translation of MSCs-EVs have been highlighted: the yield of the EVs, the purity of the EVs (free from cell debris and other biological contaminants such as protein and cytokines), and the integrity of the phospholipid bilayer membrane of the EVs after isolation.
Various methods have been developed to isolate sEVs, exploiting the density, shape, size, and surface protein of the sEVs11. The two most common methods in sEVs isolations are ultracentrifugation-based and ultrafiltration-based techniques.
Ultracentrifugation-based methods are considered gold standard methods in sEVs isolation. Two types of ultracentrifugation techniques that are usually employed are differential ultracentrifugation and density gradient ultracentrifugation. However, ultracentrifugation methods often result in low yield and require expensive equipment for high-speed ultracentrifuge (100,000-200,000 × g)11. Furthermore, ultracentrifugation techniques alone are inefficient in separating EV subtypes (sEVs and large EVs), resulting in an impure sediment layer11. Lastly, density gradient ultracentrifugation could be also time-consuming and require additional precaution steps such as sucrose buffer addition to inhibit the gradient damage during acceleration and deceleration steps12. Hence, ultracentrifugation usually leads to a relatively low yield and is not capable of discriminating between different populations of EVs13, which limits its application for large-scale EV preparation11.
The second method of EV isolation is via ultrafiltration, which is based on size filtration. Ultrafiltration is relatively time- and cost-effective compared to ultracentrifugation, as it does not involve expensive equipment or long processing times14. Hence, ultrafiltration appears to be a more effective isolation technique than both aforementioned ultracentrifugation methods. The isolated products can be more specific based on pore sizes and higher yield15. However, the additional force incurred during the filtration process may result in the deformation or eruption of the EVs16.
The current paper proposed a cost- and time-effective benchtop protocol for isolating MSC-derived sEVs for downstream analysis and therapeutic purposes. The method described in this paper combined a simple filtration method with bench top centrifugation to isolate high-yield and good-quality EVs from hUC-MSCs for downstream analysis, including particle size analysis, biomarker assay, and electron microscopic imaging.