Comparison of methods for purification of bacteriophage lysates of gram-negative bacteria for personalized therapy

Phage therapy is a promising method of treating antibiotic-resistant infections. To obtain a safe therapeutic formulation, bacterial cell components, including endotoxins, must be removed from the phage lysate. This study was aimed at comparing the efficacy of purification methods for phage lysates intended for therapeutic use. Phages vB_KpnM_Seu621 (Myoviridae) and vB_KpnP_Dlv622 (Autographiviridae) were grown using the KP9068 strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae as a host. The obtained lysates were purified using phage precipitation with polyethylene glycol, CsCl density gradient ultracentrifugation, sucrose density gradient ultracentrifugation, precipitation with 100 kDa centrifugal filter units, and phage concentration on 0.22 µm cellulose filters in the presence of MgSO4. Endotoxin concentrations were determined by LAL testing. The obtained lysates contained 1.25 × 1012 ± 7.46 × 1010 and 2.25 × 1012 ± 1.34 × 1011 PFU/ml of vB_KpnM_Seu621 and vB_KpnP_Dlv622, respectively, and had endotoxin concentrations of 3,806,056 ± 429,410 and 189,456 ± 12,406 EU/ml, respectively. CsCl gradient ultracentrifugation was found to be the optimal conventional purification method in terms of reducing endotoxin concentrations and maintaining phage titers (303 ± 20 — 313 ± 35 EU/ml, 1.5–2.75 × 1012 ± 1.71 × 1011 PFU/ml). Sucrose gradient ultracentrifugation and filtration in the presence of MgSO4 were found to be the optimal non-traditional purification methods. A method for phage lysate purification should be selected for each phage preparation individually. Sucrose gradient ultracentrifugation and filtration in the presence of MgSO4 hold promise as purification methods that can produce phage preparations suitable for intravenous administration.

Comparative evaluation of methods for isolating small extracellular vesicles derived from pancreatic cancer cells

Background Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are nanosized vesicles involved in cell-to-cell communication. sEVs have been widely studied for clinical applications such as early detection of diseases and as therapeutics. Various methods for sEVs isolation are been using, but different methods may result in different qualities of sEVs and impact downstream analysis and applications. Here, we compared current isolation methods and performed a comparative analysis of sEVs from supernatant of cultured pancreatic cancer cells. Methods Ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration and co-precipitation as concentration methods were firstly evaluated for yield, size, morphology and protein level of pellets. Then, isolate sEVs obtained by four different purification methods: size exclusion chromatography, density gradient ultracentrifugation, ultracentrifugation, and immunoaffinity capturing, were analysed and compared. Results For the concentration process, ultracentrifugation method obtained high quality and high concentration of pellets. For the purification process, immunoaffinity capturing method obtained the purest sEVs with less contaminants, while density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method obtained sEVs with the smallest size. Proteomic analysis revealed distinct protein contents of purified sEVs from different methods. Conclusions For isolating sEVs derived from supernatant of cultured pancreatic cancer cell line, ultracentrifugation-based method is recommended for concentration of sEVs, density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method may be applied for obtaining purified sEVs with controlled size, immunoaffinity capturing may be suitable for studies requiring sEVs with high purity but may loss subtypes of sEVs without specific protein marker.

Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Isolating Small Extracellular Vesicles Derived from Pancreatic Cancer Cells

Background: Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are nanosized vesicles involved in cell-to-cell communication. sEVs have been widely studied for clinical applications such as early detection of diseases and as therapeutics. Various methods for sEVs isolation are been using, but different methods may result in different qualities of sEVs and impact downstream analysis and applications. Here, we compared current isolation methods and performed a comparative analysis of sEVs from supernatant of cultured pancreatic cancer cells.Methods: Ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration and co-precipitation as concentration methods were firstly evaluated for yield, size, morphology and protein level of pellets. Then, isolate sEVs obtained by four different purification methods: size exclusion chromatography, density gradient ultracentrifugation, ultracentrifugation, and immunoaffinity capturing, were analysed and compared.Results: For the concentration process, ultracentrifugation method obtained high quality and high concentration of pellets. For the purification process, immunoaffinity capturing method obtained the purest sEVs with less contaminants, while density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method obtained sEVs with the smallest size. Proteomic analysis revealed distinct protein contents of purified sEVs from different methods. Conclusions: For isolating sEVs derived from supernatant of cultured pancreatic cancer cell line, ultracentrifugation-based method is recommended for concentration of sEVs, density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method may be applied for obtaining purified sEVs with controlled size, immunoaffinity capturing may be suitable for studies requiring sEVs with high purity but may loss subtypes of sEVs without specific protein marker.

Extracellular Vesicles from Follicular and Ampullary Fluid Isolated by Density Gradient Ultracentrifugation Improve Bovine Embryo Development and Quality

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have been isolated from follicular (FF) and ampullary oviduct fluid (AOF), using different isolation methods. However, it is not clear whether different purification methods can affect the functionality of resulting EVs. Here, we compared two methods (OptiPrep™ density gradient ultracentrifugation (ODG UC) and single-step size exclusion chromatography (SEC) (qEV IZON™ single column)) for the isolation of EVs from bovine FF and AOF. Additionally, we evaluated whether the addition of EVs derived either by ODG UC or SEC from FF or AOF during oocyte maturation would yield extra benefits for embryo developmental competence. The characterization of EVs isolated using ODG UC or SEC from FF and AOF did not show any differences in terms of EV sizes (40–400 nm) and concentrations (2.4 ± 0.2 × 1012−1.8 ± 0.2 × 1013 particles/mL). Blastocyst yield and quality was higher in groups supplemented with EVs isolated from FF and AOF by ODG UC, with higher total cell numbers and a lower apoptotic cell ratio compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). Supplementing in vitro maturation media with EVs derived by ODG UC from AOF was beneficial for bovine embryo development and quality.

Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Isolating Small Extracellular Vesicles Derived from Pancreatic Cells

Background: Small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) are nanosized vesicles involved in cell-to-cell communication. sEVs have been widely studied for clinical applications such as early detection of diseases and as therapeutics. Various methods for sEVs isolation have been using, but different methods may result in different qualities of sEVs and impact downstream analysis and applications. Here, we compared current isolation methods and performed a comparative analysis of sEVs derived from pancreatic cancer cells.Results: Ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration and co-precipitation as concentration methods were firstly evaluated for yield, size, morphology and protein level of pellets. Then, isolate sEVs obtained by four different purification methods: size exclusion chromatography, density gradient ultracentrifugation, ultracentrifugation, and immunoaffinity capturing, were analysed and compared. For the concentration process, ultracentrifugation method obtained high quality and concentration pellets. For the purification process, immunoaffinity capturing method obtained the purest sEVs with less contaminants, while density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method obtained sEVs with the smallest size. Proteomic analysis revealed distinct protein contents of purified sEVs. Conclusions: For isolating sEVs derived from pancreatic cancer cells, ultracentrifugation-based method is recommended for concentration of sEVs, density gradient ultracentrifugation-based method may be suitable for isolation of sEVs for therapeutic study, immunoaffinity capturing may be applied for studies exploring sEVs as biomarkers.