Review



cat no 2171s  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol Cell Signaling Technology Inc is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Cell Signaling Technology Inc manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 96
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Cell Signaling Technology Inc cat no 2171s
    Representation and validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD method . (A) Overview of the workflow used for identification of EV surface proteins. PE‐conjugated antibodies were incubated with the sample (e.g. pre‐purified EVs, cell culture supernatant, urine, or plasma) and loaded into the AF4 channel. (B) The light scatter elution profile (in relative scale) (black, full line), UV elution profile (black, dotted line) and the size determination ( R rms in nm) (red) obtained by the multi‐angle light scattering (MALS) detector is plotted against time for labelling of SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD81 antibody. (C) The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal (in relative scale) for SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD9, anti‐CD63 and anti‐CD81 is plotted against time. (D) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of different fractions of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD elution profile are shown (scale bar = 200 nm).
    Cat No 2171s, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 442 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/cat+no+2171s/pmc12957769-71-16-19?v=Cell+Signaling+Technology+Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 442 article reviews
    cat no 2171s - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    96/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "A One‐Step Workflow for Size‐Based Separation of Extracellular Vesicles With Integrated Surface Marker Detection"

    Article Title: A One‐Step Workflow for Size‐Based Separation of Extracellular Vesicles With Integrated Surface Marker Detection

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Biology

    doi: 10.1002/jex2.70109

    Representation and validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD method . (A) Overview of the workflow used for identification of EV surface proteins. PE‐conjugated antibodies were incubated with the sample (e.g. pre‐purified EVs, cell culture supernatant, urine, or plasma) and loaded into the AF4 channel. (B) The light scatter elution profile (in relative scale) (black, full line), UV elution profile (black, dotted line) and the size determination ( R rms in nm) (red) obtained by the multi‐angle light scattering (MALS) detector is plotted against time for labelling of SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD81 antibody. (C) The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal (in relative scale) for SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD9, anti‐CD63 and anti‐CD81 is plotted against time. (D) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of different fractions of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD elution profile are shown (scale bar = 200 nm).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Representation and validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD method . (A) Overview of the workflow used for identification of EV surface proteins. PE‐conjugated antibodies were incubated with the sample (e.g. pre‐purified EVs, cell culture supernatant, urine, or plasma) and loaded into the AF4 channel. (B) The light scatter elution profile (in relative scale) (black, full line), UV elution profile (black, dotted line) and the size determination ( R rms in nm) (red) obtained by the multi‐angle light scattering (MALS) detector is plotted against time for labelling of SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD81 antibody. (C) The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal (in relative scale) for SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD9, anti‐CD63 and anti‐CD81 is plotted against time. (D) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of different fractions of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD elution profile are shown (scale bar = 200 nm).

    Techniques Used: Biomarker Discovery, Incubation, Purification, Cell Culture, Clinical Proteomics, Multi-Angle Light Scattering, Derivative Assay, Transmission Assay, Electron Microscopy

    AF4‐MALS‐FLD analysis of EV surface proteins with biomarker potential in prostate and breast cancer . MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. (A) The elution profile (in relative scale) of the multi‐angle light scatter (MALS) detector and the size ( R rms in nm) were plotted against time. The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal for MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with (B) PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM and (C) PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies were plotted. (D) From FLD elution profiles, the area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined. Unstained EV samples were used as a negative control. (E) Different concentrations (6 × 10 9 , 8 × 10 9 , 1 × 10 10 and 2 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of LNCaP‐derived EVs (high PSMA expression) were labelled with anti‐PSMA antibodies and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. (F) The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined for LNCaP‐derived EVs. Different concentrations (2 × 10 10 , 4 × 10 10 and 6 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of (G) MCF‐7‐derived EVs (high EpCAM expression) or (I) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs (high HER2 expression) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. The area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined for (H) MCF‐7‐ and (J) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs.
    Figure Legend Snippet: AF4‐MALS‐FLD analysis of EV surface proteins with biomarker potential in prostate and breast cancer . MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. (A) The elution profile (in relative scale) of the multi‐angle light scatter (MALS) detector and the size ( R rms in nm) were plotted against time. The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal for MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with (B) PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM and (C) PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies were plotted. (D) From FLD elution profiles, the area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined. Unstained EV samples were used as a negative control. (E) Different concentrations (6 × 10 9 , 8 × 10 9 , 1 × 10 10 and 2 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of LNCaP‐derived EVs (high PSMA expression) were labelled with anti‐PSMA antibodies and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. (F) The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined for LNCaP‐derived EVs. Different concentrations (2 × 10 10 , 4 × 10 10 and 6 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of (G) MCF‐7‐derived EVs (high EpCAM expression) or (I) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs (high HER2 expression) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. The area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined for (H) MCF‐7‐ and (J) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs.

    Techniques Used: Biomarker Discovery, Derivative Assay, Multi-Angle Light Scattering, Negative Control, Expressing

    Detection of EVs in complex matrices . (A) Different volumes of cell culture supernatant (0, 20, 40 and 60 µL) collected from the MCF‐7 cells were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak in complex matrices (40–80 min) was determined. (B) Different amounts of LNCaP‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of concentrated urine, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐PSMA antibodies, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of (C) MCF‐7‐ or (D) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of blood plasma, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, and labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies, respectively. Labelled EVs were analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD and the area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of SK‐BR‐3 EVs were also spiked in blood plasma and labelled with isotype control antibodies. (E) Different concentrations of soluble EpCAM (1, 5 and 10 ng/mL) and soluble HER2 (50, 100 and 150 ng/mL) were spiked in blood plasma, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Detection of EVs in complex matrices . (A) Different volumes of cell culture supernatant (0, 20, 40 and 60 µL) collected from the MCF‐7 cells were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak in complex matrices (40–80 min) was determined. (B) Different amounts of LNCaP‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of concentrated urine, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐PSMA antibodies, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of (C) MCF‐7‐ or (D) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of blood plasma, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, and labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies, respectively. Labelled EVs were analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD and the area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of SK‐BR‐3 EVs were also spiked in blood plasma and labelled with isotype control antibodies. (E) Different concentrations of soluble EpCAM (1, 5 and 10 ng/mL) and soluble HER2 (50, 100 and 150 ng/mL) were spiked in blood plasma, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD.

    Techniques Used: Cell Culture, Derivative Assay, Viscosity, Clinical Proteomics, Control

    Validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow on patient samples . Urine samples of five prostate cancer patients were labelled for PSMA and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow. Fractions 40–80 min were collected, concentrated and processed for mass spectrometry‐based proteomic analysis. (A) EV markers Syntenin‐1, Flotillin‐1, CD63, CD9, CD81, Flotillin‐2, Alix and TSG101 were analysed (missing sample indicated in grey). Z ‐score transformation of intensities were plotted. (B) Targeted mass spectrometry analysed the presence of PSMA (FOLH1) in patient samples. The z ‐score transformation of intensities was plotted with the AF4‐MALS‐FLD peak area. (C) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 7) and HER2 amplified breast cancer patients ( n = 10) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies. (D) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 6) and breast cancer patients ( n = 8) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies. The area under the curve values were normalised for the mean value in the healthy control group.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow on patient samples . Urine samples of five prostate cancer patients were labelled for PSMA and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow. Fractions 40–80 min were collected, concentrated and processed for mass spectrometry‐based proteomic analysis. (A) EV markers Syntenin‐1, Flotillin‐1, CD63, CD9, CD81, Flotillin‐2, Alix and TSG101 were analysed (missing sample indicated in grey). Z ‐score transformation of intensities were plotted. (B) Targeted mass spectrometry analysed the presence of PSMA (FOLH1) in patient samples. The z ‐score transformation of intensities was plotted with the AF4‐MALS‐FLD peak area. (C) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 7) and HER2 amplified breast cancer patients ( n = 10) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies. (D) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 6) and breast cancer patients ( n = 8) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies. The area under the curve values were normalised for the mean value in the healthy control group.

    Techniques Used: Biomarker Discovery, Mass Spectrometry, Transformation Assay, Clinical Proteomics, Amplification, Control



    Similar Products

    cat no 2171s  (Cell Signaling Technology Inc)
    96
    Cell Signaling Technology Inc cat no 2171s
    Representation and validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD method . (A) Overview of the workflow used for identification of EV surface proteins. PE‐conjugated antibodies were incubated with the sample (e.g. pre‐purified EVs, cell culture supernatant, urine, or plasma) and loaded into the AF4 channel. (B) The light scatter elution profile (in relative scale) (black, full line), UV elution profile (black, dotted line) and the size determination ( R rms in nm) (red) obtained by the multi‐angle light scattering (MALS) detector is plotted against time for labelling of SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD81 antibody. (C) The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal (in relative scale) for SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD9, anti‐CD63 and anti‐CD81 is plotted against time. (D) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of different fractions of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD elution profile are shown (scale bar = 200 nm).
    Cat No 2171s, supplied by Cell Signaling Technology Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/cat+no+2171s/pmc12957769-71-16-19?v=Cell+Signaling+Technology+Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cat no 2171s - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    96/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Representation and validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD method . (A) Overview of the workflow used for identification of EV surface proteins. PE‐conjugated antibodies were incubated with the sample (e.g. pre‐purified EVs, cell culture supernatant, urine, or plasma) and loaded into the AF4 channel. (B) The light scatter elution profile (in relative scale) (black, full line), UV elution profile (black, dotted line) and the size determination ( R rms in nm) (red) obtained by the multi‐angle light scattering (MALS) detector is plotted against time for labelling of SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD81 antibody. (C) The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal (in relative scale) for SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD9, anti‐CD63 and anti‐CD81 is plotted against time. (D) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of different fractions of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD elution profile are shown (scale bar = 200 nm).

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Biology

    Article Title: A One‐Step Workflow for Size‐Based Separation of Extracellular Vesicles With Integrated Surface Marker Detection

    doi: 10.1002/jex2.70109

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Representation and validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD method . (A) Overview of the workflow used for identification of EV surface proteins. PE‐conjugated antibodies were incubated with the sample (e.g. pre‐purified EVs, cell culture supernatant, urine, or plasma) and loaded into the AF4 channel. (B) The light scatter elution profile (in relative scale) (black, full line), UV elution profile (black, dotted line) and the size determination ( R rms in nm) (red) obtained by the multi‐angle light scattering (MALS) detector is plotted against time for labelling of SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD81 antibody. (C) The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal (in relative scale) for SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐CD9, anti‐CD63 and anti‐CD81 is plotted against time. (D) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of different fractions of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD elution profile are shown (scale bar = 200 nm).

    Article Snippet: The following primary and secondary antibodies were used for western blot analysis: mouse monoclonal anti‐Alix (1:1000) (cat no. 2171S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐CD9 (1:1000) (cat no. 13403S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐Syntenin‐1 (1:1000) (cat no. ab133267, Abcam), mouse monoclonal anti‐TSG101 (1:1000) (cat no. sc‐7964, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐PSMA (1:1000) (cat no. 12702S), mouse monoclonal anti‐EpCAM (1:1000) (cat no. 2929S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐HER2 (1:1000) (cat no. 2165S, Cell Signaling Technology), mouse monoclonal anti‐GAPDH (1:2500) (cat no. G8795, Merck Life Science), sheep anti‐mouse horseradish peroxidase‐linked (1:3000) (cat no. NA931V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences) and donkey anti‐rabbit horseradish peroxidase‐linked antibody (1:8000) (cat no. NA934V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences).

    Techniques: Biomarker Discovery, Incubation, Purification, Cell Culture, Clinical Proteomics, Multi-Angle Light Scattering, Derivative Assay, Transmission Assay, Electron Microscopy

    AF4‐MALS‐FLD analysis of EV surface proteins with biomarker potential in prostate and breast cancer . MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. (A) The elution profile (in relative scale) of the multi‐angle light scatter (MALS) detector and the size ( R rms in nm) were plotted against time. The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal for MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with (B) PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM and (C) PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies were plotted. (D) From FLD elution profiles, the area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined. Unstained EV samples were used as a negative control. (E) Different concentrations (6 × 10 9 , 8 × 10 9 , 1 × 10 10 and 2 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of LNCaP‐derived EVs (high PSMA expression) were labelled with anti‐PSMA antibodies and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. (F) The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined for LNCaP‐derived EVs. Different concentrations (2 × 10 10 , 4 × 10 10 and 6 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of (G) MCF‐7‐derived EVs (high EpCAM expression) or (I) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs (high HER2 expression) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. The area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined for (H) MCF‐7‐ and (J) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs.

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Biology

    Article Title: A One‐Step Workflow for Size‐Based Separation of Extracellular Vesicles With Integrated Surface Marker Detection

    doi: 10.1002/jex2.70109

    Figure Lengend Snippet: AF4‐MALS‐FLD analysis of EV surface proteins with biomarker potential in prostate and breast cancer . MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. (A) The elution profile (in relative scale) of the multi‐angle light scatter (MALS) detector and the size ( R rms in nm) were plotted against time. The fluorescent light detector (FLD) signal for MCF‐7‐, MDA‐MB‐231‐ and SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs labelled with (B) PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM and (C) PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies were plotted. (D) From FLD elution profiles, the area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined. Unstained EV samples were used as a negative control. (E) Different concentrations (6 × 10 9 , 8 × 10 9 , 1 × 10 10 and 2 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of LNCaP‐derived EVs (high PSMA expression) were labelled with anti‐PSMA antibodies and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. (F) The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined for LNCaP‐derived EVs. Different concentrations (2 × 10 10 , 4 × 10 10 and 6 × 10 10 particles as measured by NTA) including a negative control of (G) MCF‐7‐derived EVs (high EpCAM expression) or (I) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs (high HER2 expression) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD protocol. The area under the curve for the EV peak (24–80 min) was determined for (H) MCF‐7‐ and (J) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs.

    Article Snippet: The following primary and secondary antibodies were used for western blot analysis: mouse monoclonal anti‐Alix (1:1000) (cat no. 2171S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐CD9 (1:1000) (cat no. 13403S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐Syntenin‐1 (1:1000) (cat no. ab133267, Abcam), mouse monoclonal anti‐TSG101 (1:1000) (cat no. sc‐7964, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐PSMA (1:1000) (cat no. 12702S), mouse monoclonal anti‐EpCAM (1:1000) (cat no. 2929S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐HER2 (1:1000) (cat no. 2165S, Cell Signaling Technology), mouse monoclonal anti‐GAPDH (1:2500) (cat no. G8795, Merck Life Science), sheep anti‐mouse horseradish peroxidase‐linked (1:3000) (cat no. NA931V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences) and donkey anti‐rabbit horseradish peroxidase‐linked antibody (1:8000) (cat no. NA934V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences).

    Techniques: Biomarker Discovery, Derivative Assay, Multi-Angle Light Scattering, Negative Control, Expressing

    Detection of EVs in complex matrices . (A) Different volumes of cell culture supernatant (0, 20, 40 and 60 µL) collected from the MCF‐7 cells were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak in complex matrices (40–80 min) was determined. (B) Different amounts of LNCaP‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of concentrated urine, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐PSMA antibodies, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of (C) MCF‐7‐ or (D) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of blood plasma, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, and labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies, respectively. Labelled EVs were analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD and the area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of SK‐BR‐3 EVs were also spiked in blood plasma and labelled with isotype control antibodies. (E) Different concentrations of soluble EpCAM (1, 5 and 10 ng/mL) and soluble HER2 (50, 100 and 150 ng/mL) were spiked in blood plasma, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD.

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Biology

    Article Title: A One‐Step Workflow for Size‐Based Separation of Extracellular Vesicles With Integrated Surface Marker Detection

    doi: 10.1002/jex2.70109

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Detection of EVs in complex matrices . (A) Different volumes of cell culture supernatant (0, 20, 40 and 60 µL) collected from the MCF‐7 cells were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak in complex matrices (40–80 min) was determined. (B) Different amounts of LNCaP‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of concentrated urine, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐PSMA antibodies, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD. The area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of (C) MCF‐7‐ or (D) SK‐BR‐3‐derived EVs were spiked in 100 µL of blood plasma, diluted 1:1 in PBS to reduce viscosity, and labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies, respectively. Labelled EVs were analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD and the area under the curve for the EV peak was determined. Different amounts of SK‐BR‐3 EVs were also spiked in blood plasma and labelled with isotype control antibodies. (E) Different concentrations of soluble EpCAM (1, 5 and 10 ng/mL) and soluble HER2 (50, 100 and 150 ng/mL) were spiked in blood plasma, labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM or anti‐HER2 antibodies respectively, and analysed by AF4‐MALS‐FLD.

    Article Snippet: The following primary and secondary antibodies were used for western blot analysis: mouse monoclonal anti‐Alix (1:1000) (cat no. 2171S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐CD9 (1:1000) (cat no. 13403S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐Syntenin‐1 (1:1000) (cat no. ab133267, Abcam), mouse monoclonal anti‐TSG101 (1:1000) (cat no. sc‐7964, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐PSMA (1:1000) (cat no. 12702S), mouse monoclonal anti‐EpCAM (1:1000) (cat no. 2929S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐HER2 (1:1000) (cat no. 2165S, Cell Signaling Technology), mouse monoclonal anti‐GAPDH (1:2500) (cat no. G8795, Merck Life Science), sheep anti‐mouse horseradish peroxidase‐linked (1:3000) (cat no. NA931V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences) and donkey anti‐rabbit horseradish peroxidase‐linked antibody (1:8000) (cat no. NA934V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences).

    Techniques: Cell Culture, Derivative Assay, Viscosity, Clinical Proteomics, Control

    Validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow on patient samples . Urine samples of five prostate cancer patients were labelled for PSMA and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow. Fractions 40–80 min were collected, concentrated and processed for mass spectrometry‐based proteomic analysis. (A) EV markers Syntenin‐1, Flotillin‐1, CD63, CD9, CD81, Flotillin‐2, Alix and TSG101 were analysed (missing sample indicated in grey). Z ‐score transformation of intensities were plotted. (B) Targeted mass spectrometry analysed the presence of PSMA (FOLH1) in patient samples. The z ‐score transformation of intensities was plotted with the AF4‐MALS‐FLD peak area. (C) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 7) and HER2 amplified breast cancer patients ( n = 10) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies. (D) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 6) and breast cancer patients ( n = 8) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies. The area under the curve values were normalised for the mean value in the healthy control group.

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Biology

    Article Title: A One‐Step Workflow for Size‐Based Separation of Extracellular Vesicles With Integrated Surface Marker Detection

    doi: 10.1002/jex2.70109

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Validation of the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow on patient samples . Urine samples of five prostate cancer patients were labelled for PSMA and analysed by the AF4‐MALS‐FLD workflow. Fractions 40–80 min were collected, concentrated and processed for mass spectrometry‐based proteomic analysis. (A) EV markers Syntenin‐1, Flotillin‐1, CD63, CD9, CD81, Flotillin‐2, Alix and TSG101 were analysed (missing sample indicated in grey). Z ‐score transformation of intensities were plotted. (B) Targeted mass spectrometry analysed the presence of PSMA (FOLH1) in patient samples. The z ‐score transformation of intensities was plotted with the AF4‐MALS‐FLD peak area. (C) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 7) and HER2 amplified breast cancer patients ( n = 10) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐HER2 antibodies. (D) Blood plasma samples of healthy controls ( n = 6) and breast cancer patients ( n = 8) were labelled with PE‐conjugated anti‐EpCAM antibodies. The area under the curve values were normalised for the mean value in the healthy control group.

    Article Snippet: The following primary and secondary antibodies were used for western blot analysis: mouse monoclonal anti‐Alix (1:1000) (cat no. 2171S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐CD9 (1:1000) (cat no. 13403S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐Syntenin‐1 (1:1000) (cat no. ab133267, Abcam), mouse monoclonal anti‐TSG101 (1:1000) (cat no. sc‐7964, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐PSMA (1:1000) (cat no. 12702S), mouse monoclonal anti‐EpCAM (1:1000) (cat no. 2929S, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit monoclonal anti‐HER2 (1:1000) (cat no. 2165S, Cell Signaling Technology), mouse monoclonal anti‐GAPDH (1:2500) (cat no. G8795, Merck Life Science), sheep anti‐mouse horseradish peroxidase‐linked (1:3000) (cat no. NA931V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences) and donkey anti‐rabbit horseradish peroxidase‐linked antibody (1:8000) (cat no. NA934V, GE Healthcare Life Sciences).

    Techniques: Biomarker Discovery, Mass Spectrometry, Transformation Assay, Clinical Proteomics, Amplification, Control