Review



human transferrin receptor elisa kit  (Thermo Fisher)


Bioz Verified Symbol Thermo Fisher is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Thermo Fisher manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 98

    Structured Review

    Thermo Fisher human transferrin receptor elisa kit
    Human Transferrin Receptor Elisa Kit, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 98/100, based on 14498 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human transferrin receptor elisa kit/product/Thermo Fisher
    Average 98 stars, based on 14498 article reviews
    human transferrin receptor elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    98/100 stars

    Images



    Similar Products

    98
    Thermo Fisher human transferrin receptor elisa kit
    Human Transferrin Receptor Elisa Kit, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 98/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human transferrin receptor elisa kit/product/Thermo Fisher
    Average 98 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    human transferrin receptor elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    98/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    Multi Sciences (Lianke) Biotech Co Ltd human transferrin elisa kit
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Human Transferrin Elisa Kit, supplied by Multi Sciences (Lianke) Biotech Co Ltd, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human transferrin elisa kit/product/Multi Sciences (Lianke) Biotech Co Ltd
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    human transferrin elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    86
    Danaher Inc human transferrin receptor elisa kit
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Human Transferrin Receptor Elisa Kit, supplied by Danaher Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human transferrin receptor elisa kit/product/Danaher Inc
    Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    human transferrin receptor elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    86/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    BioVendor Instruments sandwich enzyme immunoassay kit
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Sandwich Enzyme Immunoassay Kit, supplied by BioVendor Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/sandwich enzyme immunoassay kit/product/BioVendor Instruments
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    sandwich enzyme immunoassay kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    BioVendor Instruments human stfr elisa kit
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Human Stfr Elisa Kit, supplied by BioVendor Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human stfr elisa kit/product/BioVendor Instruments
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    human stfr elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    BioVendor Instruments elisa kit
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Elisa Kit, supplied by BioVendor Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/elisa kit/product/BioVendor Instruments
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    BioVendor Instruments human elisa kit
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Human Elisa Kit, supplied by BioVendor Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human elisa kit/product/BioVendor Instruments
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    human elisa kit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Monobind human transferrin receptor elisa kit wkea med supplies comp
    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the <t>transferrin</t> conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.
    Human Transferrin Receptor Elisa Kit Wkea Med Supplies Comp, supplied by Monobind, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/human transferrin receptor elisa kit wkea med supplies comp/product/Monobind
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    human transferrin receptor elisa kit wkea med supplies comp - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the transferrin conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Vesicles

    Article Title: Unravelling Ligand Conjugation Performance in Extracellular Vesicles: A Quantitative Assessment of Lipid, Protein, and Membrane Modifications

    doi: 10.1002/jev2.70174

    Figure Lengend Snippet: The impact of ligand conjugation on cell uptake of mEVs‐Tf. (a) Schematic illustration of the principle for evaluating the correlation between ligand conjugation and cell uptake. (b) Confocal fluorescence microscopy analysis of the cell uptake of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and the transferrin conjugated counterparts in the presence or absence of 50 mM free transferrin, respectively. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV‐Tf for 12 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) for cell nuclei imaging. (c) Lysosome colocalization analysis of DiD‐labelled blank mEVs and mEVs‐Tf engineered by different methods. HepG2 cells were incubated with DiD‐labelled (red) mEV samples for 24 h, and stained with Hoechst 33342 (blue) and LysoTracker (green) for cell nuclei and lysosome imaging, respectively. (d) Semi‐quantitative analysis of the colocalization degree between mEVs and lysosomes using the Manders' colocalization coefficients M1 and M2. (e) Representative dot‐plots between particle size and ligand number of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. The transferrin concentration was 50 µM for all three samples. (f), (g) Percentage of Tf‐CF488 positive particles (f) and ligand density (g) of the mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods with increasing input concentrations of Tf‐CF488. (h) FCM analysis of the impact of ligand density on the cell uptake degree of the DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐i), protein modification (panel‐ii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iii), respectively. (i,j) The relationship between cell fluorescence intensity (FL‐DiD) and input concentration of Tf‐CF488 (i), and ligand density (j) for DiD‐labelled mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 engineered by different methods.

    Article Snippet: The concentration of accessible transferrin conjugated on mEVs was measured by a human transferrin ELISA kit (MultiSciences).

    Techniques: Conjugation Assay, Fluorescence, Microscopy, Incubation, Staining, Imaging, Modification, Membrane, Concentration Assay

    Impact of ligand conjugation on MFGE8 accessibility and surface‐ligand distribution homogeneity of transferrin. (a) Schematic illustration of ligand conjugation effects on the cell binding behaviour of mEVs‐Tf. (b) FCM analysis of the MFGE8‐mediated cell uptake of mEVs. HepG2 cells were treated with DiD‐labelled blank mEVs with (blue) or without (red) labelling against MFGE8 antibodies. (c) Relationships between particle size and the immunofluorescence intensity of MFGE8 for blank mEVs (panel‐i) and the transferrin‐conjugated mEVs engineered by lipid modification (panel‐ii), protein modification (panel‐iii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iv), respectively. (d) The percentage of MFGE8‐positive particles (left y‐axis) and the immunofluorescence intensity (right y‐axis) of the mEV samples. (e) Correlation between the fluorescence intensity of CF488 versus CF594 for individual mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 (panel‐i) and mEVs‐Tf‐CF488&Tf‐CF594 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐ii), protein modification (panel‐iii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iv), respectively. (f) The percentage of CF594‐positive particles (left y‐axis) and the relative fluorescence intensity of CF594 to CF488 (right y‐axis) of the mEV samples. Note: In these experiments, the concentrations of sPLD, TCEP and DSPE‐PEG‐MAL for lipid‐, protein‐ and membrane‐based ligand conjugation were 10 U/mL, 2 and 1.25 mM, respectively.

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Vesicles

    Article Title: Unravelling Ligand Conjugation Performance in Extracellular Vesicles: A Quantitative Assessment of Lipid, Protein, and Membrane Modifications

    doi: 10.1002/jev2.70174

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Impact of ligand conjugation on MFGE8 accessibility and surface‐ligand distribution homogeneity of transferrin. (a) Schematic illustration of ligand conjugation effects on the cell binding behaviour of mEVs‐Tf. (b) FCM analysis of the MFGE8‐mediated cell uptake of mEVs. HepG2 cells were treated with DiD‐labelled blank mEVs with (blue) or without (red) labelling against MFGE8 antibodies. (c) Relationships between particle size and the immunofluorescence intensity of MFGE8 for blank mEVs (panel‐i) and the transferrin‐conjugated mEVs engineered by lipid modification (panel‐ii), protein modification (panel‐iii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iv), respectively. (d) The percentage of MFGE8‐positive particles (left y‐axis) and the immunofluorescence intensity (right y‐axis) of the mEV samples. (e) Correlation between the fluorescence intensity of CF488 versus CF594 for individual mEVs‐Tf‐CF488 (panel‐i) and mEVs‐Tf‐CF488&Tf‐CF594 engineered by lipid modification (panel‐ii), protein modification (panel‐iii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iv), respectively. (f) The percentage of CF594‐positive particles (left y‐axis) and the relative fluorescence intensity of CF594 to CF488 (right y‐axis) of the mEV samples. Note: In these experiments, the concentrations of sPLD, TCEP and DSPE‐PEG‐MAL for lipid‐, protein‐ and membrane‐based ligand conjugation were 10 U/mL, 2 and 1.25 mM, respectively.

    Article Snippet: The concentration of accessible transferrin conjugated on mEVs was measured by a human transferrin ELISA kit (MultiSciences).

    Techniques: Conjugation Assay, Binding Assay, Immunofluorescence, Modification, Membrane, Fluorescence

    In vivo cancer targeting performance of ligand‐conjugated mEVs. (a) In vivo fluorescence images of the cancer‐bearing mice injected with DiD‐labelled blank mEVs, and mEVs‐Tf engineered by distinct methods at different time points. (b) Time‐dependent variation in radiant efficiency of the tumour site of the mice treated with various mEV formulations. (c) Ex vivo fluorescence images of tumours and other organs excised from the treated mice at 24 h post‐injection. (d) Radiant efficiency of the tumours and other organs based on the ex vivo fluorescence images. (e) Schematic illustration of the principle for characterizing the IgG and IgM adsorption on mEVs after serum incubation. (f), (g) Representative distributions and the bivariate dot‐plots of the particle size and the immunofluorescence intensity of IgG (f) and IgM (g) of the mouse serum‐incubated blank mEVs (panel‐i), and the transferrin‐conjugated counterparts engineered by lipid modification (panel‐ii), protein modification (panel‐iii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iv), respectively. (h)–(j) Immunolabelling ratio (h), immunofluorescence intensity (i), and particle size (j) of the mouse serum‐incubated mEV samples. (k) The ELISA measurement of the accessible transferrin concentration of the mEV samples before and after serum incubation.

    Journal: Journal of Extracellular Vesicles

    Article Title: Unravelling Ligand Conjugation Performance in Extracellular Vesicles: A Quantitative Assessment of Lipid, Protein, and Membrane Modifications

    doi: 10.1002/jev2.70174

    Figure Lengend Snippet: In vivo cancer targeting performance of ligand‐conjugated mEVs. (a) In vivo fluorescence images of the cancer‐bearing mice injected with DiD‐labelled blank mEVs, and mEVs‐Tf engineered by distinct methods at different time points. (b) Time‐dependent variation in radiant efficiency of the tumour site of the mice treated with various mEV formulations. (c) Ex vivo fluorescence images of tumours and other organs excised from the treated mice at 24 h post‐injection. (d) Radiant efficiency of the tumours and other organs based on the ex vivo fluorescence images. (e) Schematic illustration of the principle for characterizing the IgG and IgM adsorption on mEVs after serum incubation. (f), (g) Representative distributions and the bivariate dot‐plots of the particle size and the immunofluorescence intensity of IgG (f) and IgM (g) of the mouse serum‐incubated blank mEVs (panel‐i), and the transferrin‐conjugated counterparts engineered by lipid modification (panel‐ii), protein modification (panel‐iii) and membrane insertion (panel‐iv), respectively. (h)–(j) Immunolabelling ratio (h), immunofluorescence intensity (i), and particle size (j) of the mouse serum‐incubated mEV samples. (k) The ELISA measurement of the accessible transferrin concentration of the mEV samples before and after serum incubation.

    Article Snippet: The concentration of accessible transferrin conjugated on mEVs was measured by a human transferrin ELISA kit (MultiSciences).

    Techniques: In Vivo, Fluorescence, Injection, Ex Vivo, Adsorption, Incubation, Immunofluorescence, Modification, Membrane, Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay, Concentration Assay