<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>5(1)</volume><submitter>Skottvoll FS</submitter><funding>Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence scheme</funding><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Aim&lt;/h4>For isolation of exosomes, differential ultracentrifugation and an isolation kit from a major vendor were compared.&lt;h4>Materials &amp; methods&lt;/h4>'Case study' exosomes isolated from patient-derived cells from glioblastoma multiforme and a breast cancer cell line were analyzed.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering, western blotting, and so forth, revealed comparable performance. Potential protein biomarkers for both diseases were also identified in the isolates using nanoLC-MS. Western blotting and nanoLC-MS also revealed negative exosome markers regarding both isolation approaches.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>The two isolation methods had an overall similar performance, but we hesitate to use the term 'exosome isolation' as impurities may be present with</pubmed_abstract><journal>Future science OA</journal><pagination>FSO359</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC6331754</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Ultracentrifugation versus kit exosome isolation: nanoLC-MS and other tools reveal similar performance biomarkers, but also contaminations.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC6331754</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Roberg-Larsen H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Skottvoll FS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Thiede B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Nystrom B</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bekhradnia S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bjorseth K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wilson SR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Berg HE</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Roos N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sandberg C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lundanes E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lund K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Vik-Mo EO</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Ultracentrifugation versus kit exosome isolation: nanoLC-MS and other tools reveal similar performance biomarkers, but also contaminations.</name><description>&lt;h4>Aim&lt;/h4>For isolation of exosomes, differential ultracentrifugation and an isolation kit from a major vendor were compared.&lt;h4>Materials &amp; methods&lt;/h4>'Case study' exosomes isolated from patient-derived cells from glioblastoma multiforme and a breast cancer cell line were analyzed.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Transmission electron microscopy, dynamic light scattering, western blotting, and so forth, revealed comparable performance. Potential protein biomarkers for both diseases were also identified in the isolates using nanoLC-MS. Western blotting and nanoLC-MS also revealed negative exosome markers regarding both isolation approaches.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>The two isolation methods had an overall similar performance, but we hesitate to use the term 'exosome isolation' as impurities may be present with</description><dates><release>2019-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2019 Jan</publication><modification>2026-05-06T20:24:47.656Z</modification><creation>2019-03-26T22:38:01Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC6331754</accession><cross_references><pubmed>30652024</pubmed><doi>10.4155/fsoa-2018-0088</doi></cross_references></HashMap>