A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
* These authors contributed equally
Small extracellular vesicles derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSC-sEVs) have been underscored as a cell-free treatment modality with minimal adverse effects. This study provides a protocol combining hemodialysis with ultracentrifugation, significantly reducing the time spent on the entire process and ensuring compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards.
Small extracellular vesicles (sEV) derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSC-sEVs) have been underscored as a cell-free treatment modality with minimal adverse effects. In contrast, traditional extraction methods such as ultracentrifugation and size-exclusion chromatography are limited by their time intensity, cost, and scalability. To overcome these limitations, we propose a method integrating a hemodialyzer and ultracentrifugation. This approach utilizes a hemodialysis device with a 100 kDa molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) membrane, which selectively concentrates sEVs while filtering out a plethora of proteins, thereby enhancing the yield and purity of sEVs. This initial purification step is followed by ultracentrifugation to further refine the sEV preparation. The integration of these two technologies not only significantly reduced the time spent on the entire process but also ensured compliance with good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards. The method here demonstrates high efficiency in isolating sEVs from a large volume of samples, offering a significant advancement over traditional methods. This protocol holds promise for accelerating the translation of EV-based therapies into clinical practice by providing a scalable, cost-effective, and GMP-compliant solution.
Small extracellular vesicles derived from mesenchymal stem cells (MSC-sEVs) are heterogeneous vesicles enriched with multiple components such as mRNA, micro-RNA, cytokines, lipids, and metabolites1. In recent years, many studies have underscored the immense therapeutic potential of MSC-sEVs as a cell-free treatment modality with minimal adverse effects2, showing promise in addressing a spectrum of conditions, including aging, tissue degeneration, cancer, and inflammatory disorder3,4,5,6. Nevertheless, a critical challenge persists in large-scale extraction of sEV, with traditional methods proving to be either laboriously time-intensive or economically unfeasible. Furthermore, ensuring reproducibility is paramount for the clinical application and translation of EV-based therapies7. Researchers are in dire need of a purification method that is not only simple and efficient but also compliant with good manufacturing practice (GMP) standards8.
The conventional purification methods, including ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration, size-exclusion chromatography, immunoaffinity, and polymer precipitation, have been extensively applied in previous research9. In general, traditional methods for sEV isolation exhibit limitations such as low yield rate, compromised purity, and challenges in meeting stringent aseptic standards. Furthermore, previous research has reported the potential of promising techniques like microfluidic systems10,11, label-free magnetic isolation12, and covalent chemistry isolation13 for achieving outstanding performance. However, the requirement for specialized equipment makes these advanced techniques challenging for the majority of research teams to adopt. In summary, the efficient method to isolate GMP grade sEVs from a large volume of samples remains a critical obstacle, limiting the progress of numerous teams in both research and clinical applications.
Ultracentrifugation is the most widely adopted method for sEV isolation and is recognized as the gold-standard method14,15. It is a technique that leverages differences in density and size to isolate sEVs. Isolated sEVs are commonly rinsed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to eliminate residual contaminants. Then, an appropriate volume of PBS is generally used to resuspend the rinsed sEVs and different expected concentrations of sEVs can be harvested by controlling the volume of PBS. Furthermore, it is reported that the purity of plasma sEVs obtained by ultracentrifugation appears to be better than that of plasma sEVs isolated by size exclusion chromatography (SEC), and the sEVs obtained by ultracentrifugation have lower non-vesicular extracellular particles (NVEPs) impurities. This also makes ultracentrifugation the most widely used and difficult to replace in many treatments that require high concentrations of sEVs. However, in addition to quality and purity, efficiency is also a factor that cannot be ignored in large-volume sEV extraction. So far, a single round of ultracentrifugation can support a sample volume of up to approximately 600 mL, which determines that it is difficult to meet the demand for large-scale extraction by just ultracentrifugation16.
A hemodialysis device consists of a membrane-based module that houses thousands of hollow fibers. Blood circulates through these fibers within an enclosed cylindrical chamber17. The constituents of the blood can selectively pass through these membranes based on their molecular size and ionic concentration. In the clinic, it is widely used as an artificial kidney to remove waste products and excess fluids from the blood of patients18,19,20. In other words, the hemodialyzer also has the potential to concentrate large-volume samples, relying on a process similar to tangential flow filtration (TFF). In the recent guideline issued by the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV), sEV concentrates are considered suitable for large-volume samples, such as cell culture medium. After decades of development, hemodialyzers have been widely adopted in hospitals, supported by an abundance of mature consumables and a pool of skilled operators, which makes it easier to keep the sample sterile.
This study presents a sEV purification method based on a hemodialyzer and ultracentrifuge compatible with GMPs. Here, we choose dialyzers of 100 kDa molecular weight cut-off (MWCO), which has been demonstrated to effectively capture sEVs and filter out numerous proteins22. Ultracentrifugation also provides a step for further purification. The work demonstrates that the hemodialyzer is equally suitable for the concentration of sEVs. This protocol allows researchers to isolate sEVs from large-volume samples efficiently. We have registered the clinical trial in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR, NO. ChiCTR2200059018), which is still in progress and has not been completed yet. Although clinical data is not readily available for publication at this moment, a reliable, large-scale, efficient, and compliant method for producing sEVs as reported in this protocol is a prerequisite for conducting pre-clinical and clinical trials.
The protocol was approved and conducted in accordance with the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Southwest Hospital.
1. Removing cell debris from the culture medium
NOTE: The procedures below should be operated in a GMP-compliant environment, especially when the samples may be directly exposed to the environment.
2. Concentrating the filtered culture medium with a hemodialyzer
NOTE: Refrain from using Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) containing phenol red in cell culture, as the blood-leak detector in the hemodialyzer will be activated or shut down the blood-leak detector in the hemodialyzer setting.
3. Separating the sEVs with ultracentrifuge
4. Characterization of obtained sEVs
Morphological characterization of sEVs
In the final stage of concentration, the wasted fluid was also collected as described. The concentrated medium and wasted fluid were ultracentrifuged, respectively. We collected the precipitations for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis. As anticipated, a significant number of cup-shaped nanovesicles were observed in the concentrated medium group (Figure 2A,B). However,...
Traditional methods for the isolation of sEVs include differential ultracentrifugation, size exclusion chromatography, and PEG precipitation, each with its own merits and demerits. While amalgamation of these disparate techniques may enhance the yield or purity of sEVs, additional steps often introduce more opportunities for sample contamination. There are integrated systems claiming to extract sEVs in bulk and adhere to GMP standards have emerged on the market21. However, their widespread adoptio...
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation of China (822101167, to BB) and the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX0020Β to BB), Chongqing PhD "Through Train" Scientific Research Project of China (CSTB2022BSXM-JCX0031 to BB) and National Science Foundation of China (82271132 to YL). We are grateful for the assistance of the Department of Nephrology, the First affiliated hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), and Institute of Pathology and Southwest Cancer Center, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University) for the equipment and technical support.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Anti-CD63 | SBI System Biosciences | EXOAB-CD63A-1 | 1:1000 dilution |
Anti-CD9 | SBI System Biosciences | EXOAB-CD9A-1 | 1:1000 dilution |
Anti-HSP70 | SBI System Biosciences | EXOAB-Hsp70A-1 | 1:1000 dilution |
Bicinchoninic Acid Protein Assay Kit | Beyotime | P0012 | |
Bloodlines | Fresenius Medical Care | AP16641 | |
Bovine serum albumin 5% | Solarbio | 9048-46-8 | |
Cell culture supplement | Helios | HPCPLCGL05 | 5% (v/v) in cell culture media |
Copper grid | Precise | RGRSΒ GP-SMPG-1 | |
Dialyzer | Helixone | FX8 | 100 kDa MWCO |
Drainage bag | CZRUIDE | YLD-01 | |
GoatΒ Anti-RabbitΒ HRP | SBI System Biosciences | EXOAB-CD63A-1 | 1:10000 dilution |
GoatΒ Anti-RabbitΒ HRP | SBI System Biosciences | EXOAB-CD9A-1 | 1:10000 dilution |
GoatΒ Anti-RabbitΒ HRP | SBI System Biosciences | EXOAB-Hsp70A-1 | 1:10000 dilution |
Mesenchymal Stem Cell Basal Medium (MSCBM) | Dakewe | DKW34-BM20500 | |
Microfiltration membrane | shanghaixingya | WKLM-50-10 | 0.45 ΞΌm and 0.22 ΞΌmΒ |
Parafilm | Fisher Scientific | 1337416 | |
Peristaltic pump | LongerPump | YZ1515x | |
Phosphate buffer saline | Solarbio | P1022-500ml | |
Immun-Blot PVDF Membrane | BIO-RAD | 1620177 | |
SDS-PAGE Gel Quick Preparation Kit | Beyotime | P0012AC | |
SDS-PAGE Sample Loading Buffer | Beyotime | P0015A | |
Super ECL Plus Western Blotting Substrate | BIOGROUND | BG0001 | |
TBST buffer | Solarbio | T1081 | |
Ultracentrifuge tubes 38.5 mL | Beckman | 344058 | |
Bio-Rad ChemiDoc MP Imaging System | BIO-RAD | ||
Hemodialyzer | NIKKISO | DBB-27 | |
Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis | ZetaView | PMX120 | To measure particle size distribution and particle concentration |
Transmission Electron Microscopy | JEOL | JEM-1400PLUS | Recommended settingsοΌExposure: 1.0 s, HT Voltafe 100.00 kV, Beam Curr: 50 ΞΌA, Spot Size: 1, Mode: TEM. |
Ultracentrifuge | BECKMAN COULTER | OPTIMA XPN-100 | SW 28Ti SwingingBucket Rotor |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright Β© 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved