Approaching singularity: how to measure single EV particles
Sizing and counting extracellular vesicles (EVs) is one of those operations that looks straightforward on paper and turns out to be quietly difficult in the laboratory. EVs occupy a size range (roughly 30 to 1000 nm) where most conventional instrumentation either fails completely or works only with significant caveats. The samples are almost always polydisperse, often contain non-vesicular particles of similar size, and the property of interest (a meaningful particle size distribution and absolute concentration) is sensitive to method-specific biases that the manufacturers' marketing materials tend to gloss over.
Three single-particle methods dominate the modern EV characterisation toolkit: nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), tunable resistive pulse sensing (TRPS) and microfluidic resistive pulse sensing (MRPS). Each measures every detected particle individually rather than reporting an ensemble average, and each has well documented strengths and weaknesses on biological EV samples. The MISEV2023 guidelines from the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles recommend single-particle methods of this kind for EV size and concentration reporting, and emphasise the value of using more than one orthogonal technique to minimise method-specific bias.
This article compares the three methods on the criteria that actually matter for a researcher choosing one for a project: how the technique works, what level of size and concentration accuracy is realistic, how it handles polydisperse samples, what sample preparation it demands, what it costs to run, and what kinds of EV workflow each is best suited to.
| Key Point |
| NTA, TRPS and MRPS all count and size EVs one particle at a time, but they measure fundamentally different physical properties and disagree in characteristic ways. NTA tracks Brownian motion using scattered light and is the most widely deployed and accessible method, but underestimates particle concentration on polydisperse EV samples by roughly an order of magnitude relative to the resistive pulse methods, and loses sensitivity below approximately 60 nm. TRPS measures the resistive pulse generated as each particle traverses a tunable elastomeric nanopore, giving excellent resolution on subpopulations and accurate zeta potential, but requires pre-purified samples, hands-on operation and frequent calibration. MRPS uses a disposable microfluidic cartridge with a nanoconstriction; it is fast, reproducible, accurate for both size and concentration on polydisperse samples, and is independent of refractive index, but cannot measure zeta potential. For routine concentration and size determination on EV preparations, MRPS gives the most reliable absolute numbers; for accessibility and method familiarity in the broader EV community, NTA remains the default; for subpopulation resolution and zeta potential, TRPS is the established choice. The MISEV2023 guidelines explicitly support combining orthogonal single-particle techniques where the application warrants it. |
Why Single-Particle Methods Matter for EVs
Earlier EV concentration estimates relied on bulk protein assays (BCA, Bradford), bulk lipid assays, or dynamic light scattering (DLS). None of these is single-particle: bulk assays do not distinguish EVs from co-isolated contaminants, and DLS gives an ensemble intensity-weighted average that is dominated by the largest particles in a polydisperse sample. A 200 nm EV scatters approximately 1300 times more light than a 50 nm EV under DLS conditions, so a small minority of large particles can mask the smaller and more abundant exosome population entirely.
Single-particle methods solve this by detecting and characterising each particle independently. The full size distribution is built up particle by particle, with no a priori assumption about the shape of the distribution. The MISEV2023 guidelines reflect this shift, recommending NTA, resistive pulse sensing or single-particle flow cytometry for size and concentration measurement, and discouraging reliance on bulk methods where resolution between EV subpopulations or between EVs and contaminants is required. The three methods compared below cover the dominant single-particle implementations in current EV laboratories.
| What is Polydispersity? |
| Polydispersity describes the spread of particle sizes within a sample. A monodisperse sample contains particles of essentially one size (calibration beads, for example, manufactured to a single specification). A polydisperse sample contains particles spanning a wide size range, sometimes by an order of magnitude or more. Native EV preparations are inherently polydisperse: a typical small EV preparation from cell culture supernatant contains particles from below 50 nm to above 200 nm, with co-isolated non-vesicular particles (lipoproteins, protein aggregates, ribonucleoprotein complexes) frequently overlapping the same size range. Polydispersity is the property that breaks ensemble methods like dynamic light scattering, where intensity scales with the sixth power of diameter and a small minority of large particles dominates the signal. Single-particle methods are designed to handle polydispersity by sizing each particle independently, but they do not all handle it equally well. NTA loses small particles when larger ones are present in the same sample because scattered light from the larger particles reduces the contrast for tracking smaller ones. TRPS and MRPS, which measure each particle by volume rather than scattering, are largely immune to this effect. The practical implication for EV work is that the more polydisperse the sample, the larger the discrepancy between NTA and the resistive pulse methods will be, with NTA progressively underestimating both the small particle count and the total concentration as polydispersity increases. |
Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA)
NTA illuminates a thin volume of dilute sample with a laser and tracks the scattered light from individual particles undergoing Brownian motion. The diffusion coefficient calculated from each particle's tracked trajectory is converted to hydrodynamic diameter through the Stokes-Einstein equation. Particle concentration is calculated from the number of particles tracked per unit volume over a fixed measurement period. The two dominant commercial implementations are the Malvern NanoSight and the Particle Metrix ZetaView, which differ in optical design and software but share the underlying principle.
The strengths of NTA are accessibility and familiarity. The instruments are present in the majority of EV research laboratories, the technique is well documented across thousands of EV publications, and the software is straightforward to operate after initial training. Sample volumes are small (typically 300 to 1000 microlitres in the measurement chamber), measurements take a few minutes per replicate, and fluorescence modes allow labelled subpopulations to be quantified against the total particle background.
The weaknesses are well characterised: Detection sensitivity falls off rapidly below approximately 60 to 70 nm because small particles scatter too little light to be tracked reliably, particularly when larger particles in the same sample are present and saturate the detector. This is not a minor calibration issue: NTA characteristically reports modal diameters between 100 and 150 nm for EV preparations that transmission electron microscopy and other orthogonal methods show to peak well below 100 nm. The underestimate is structural, not operator-dependent, but can be taken into account.
Concentration estimates from NTA also drift below the values returned by resistive pulse methods on the same EV samples. Multi-platform comparisons report NTA particle counts approximately an order of magnitude lower than MRPS or nanoflow cytometry on biological EV preparations, although NTA and the other methods agree closely on monodisperse polystyrene standards. The interpretation is that polydispersity itself biases NTA: light scattering from larger particles reduces the contrast with which smaller particles can be tracked, and a significant fraction of the small population is missed entirely.
Comparisons between NanoSight and ZetaView further complicate the picture. ZetaView gives more accurate and more reproducible concentration measurements (bias 2 to 9 percent relative to serial dilution, coefficient of variation under 5 percent), while NanoSight gives more accurate size measurements relative to electron microscopy. Both fail to resolve the EV population peak below 60 nm. Reports of NTA-derived modal diameters from any instrument should therefore be read and interpreted with the limitation in mind: the modal diameter reflects the smallest particle the instrument can reliably track, not necessarily the most abundant EV size in the sample.
NTA remains the most appropriate single-particle method for laboratories that need a general-purpose, medium throughput, accessible tool for EV size and concentration characterisation, that have many users sharing one instrument, or that need fluorescence-based subpopulation analysis. Its limitations matter most when absolute concentration is the primary endpoint, when small EV detection is critical, or when comparing across studies and laboratories where instrument-to-instrument variation, between makres in particular, will compound NTA's inherent biases.
Tunable Resistive Pulse Sensing (TRPS)
TRPS measures particles individually as they traverse a tunable nanopore in an elastomeric membrane separating two electrolyte chambers. The concept is similar to nanopore sequencing of nucleic acids: Each particle generates a transient resistive pulse whose magnitude is proportional to particle volume and whose frequency over time gives particle concentration. The pore is stretchable, so a single nanopore module can be tuned electronically to a range of cut-off diameters by adjusting mechanical stretch, applied voltage and pressure. The dominant commercial implementation is the Izon Exoid, which superseded the earlier qNano Gold; the underlying technology was developed by Izon Science and remains proprietary.
The strengths of TRPS are resolution on polydisperse samples and orthogonal zeta potential measurement. Because each particle is sized by its volume rather than its scattering properties, TRPS resolves subpopulations within a polydisperse mixture that NTA cannot separate, and reports particle counts that are largely independent of polydispersity. Direct comparisons on polystyrene size standards show baseline separation of distinct populations under TRPS where NTA returns a broad merged peak. The technique works reliably down to approximately 40 nm in optimised conditions, and combines size, concentration and zeta potential in a single workflow.
The major weaknesses are operational. TRPS requires very careful sample preparation: pre-purified EVs in a defined electrolyte buffer, typically PBS with surfactant (Tween 20 at 0.03 percent or BSA) to prevent aggregation. Crude biofluids cannot be measured directly. Nanopore modules are consumables that must be matched to the expected particle size range, and clogging is a routine issue with samples that contain any residual protein, lipoprotein or aggregated debris. Calibration with monodisperse beads of known size and concentration is required before each measurement campaign. The technique is sensitive to environmental noise, both mechanical (vibration) and electrical, and performance varies between laboratory environments. The time it takes to measure each sample is longer than NTA and the sample throughput is much lower
For laboratories that need defensible subpopulation resolution, accurate size distributions on pre-purified samples, and zeta potential as a quality control parameter alongside size and concentration, TRPS is the established method. The investment in operator training is non-trivial, and the technique is best suited to laboratories where a small number of trained users runmlow numbers of measurements regularly rather than to multi-user core facility settings.
Microfluidic Resistive Pulse Sensing (MRPS)
MRPS applies the same Coulter principle as TRPS, but the nanopore is replaced with a fixed nanoconstriction fabricated into a disposable microfluidic cartridge. The cartridge sets the size range for the measurement; switching to a different size range means swapping cartridges rather than retuning a single pore. The dominant commercial implementation is Spectradyne, whose nCS1 and ARC particle analysers both use MRPS, with the ARC adding simultaneous single-particle fluorescence detection in up to three channels. The technology was first commercialised in 2014 and has accumulated a substantial validation literature on EV samples since.
The strengths of MRPS are accuracy, throughput and tolerance to polydispersity. Direct comparisons against transmission electron microscopy show that MRPS reproduces the power-law size distribution characteristic of EV preparations across the full measured size range, where NTA returns a distorted distribution biased towards larger particles. Concentration measurements agree closely with nanoflow cytometry and electron microscopy and are independent of refractive index, sample colour, polydispersity and the presence of unrelated co-isolated particles. The disposable cartridge format eliminates the calibration and clogging issues that affect TRPS, since a fresh cartridge is used for each sample or measurement set. Measurement time is short (minutes per sample), sample volume is small (3 microlitres into the cartridge reservoir), and fluorescence mode on the ARC allows phenotyping of subpopulations alongside the size and concentration measurement on every particle.
The weaknesses are real but narrower than for either alternative. MRPS does not measure zeta potential, which removes one orthogonal parameter that TRPS provides. The cartridges are consumables, and the cost per sample is higher than NTA running costs (where the only consumable is dilute buffer). The lower size limit, like all the methods compared here, is roughly 50 nm in routine practice, although Spectradyne reports detection down to that limit using the appropriate cartridge. Sample preparation, while less demanding than TRPS, still requires removal of cells and large debris by upstream filtration or low-speed centrifugation to avoid cartridge clogging.
For laboratories whose primary requirement is reproducible absolute concentration and accurate size distribution on polydisperse EV samples (typical of clinical biomarker work, therapeutic-grade preparation quality control, or methodological studies where multi-laboratory reproducibility matters), MRPS gives the most reliable numbers of the three methods. The ARC platform's fluorescence capability is increasingly important where phenotyping of EV subpopulations within a heterogeneous preparation is needed without sample-prep-induced bias.
Head-to-Head: What the Comparison Studies Show
Several multi-platform studies have compared NTA, TRPS and MRPS directly on the same EV preparations, and a consistent pattern emerges.
On monodisperse polystyrene standards, all three methods return comparable size and concentration values. The differences emerge only when polydisperse biological EVs are introduced.
On polydisperse biological EVs, NTA returns particle counts approximately one order of magnitude lower than MRPS, with modal diameters skewed towards larger sizes (typically above 100 nm) where electron microscopy and the resistive pulse methods agree that the true mode is closer to 70 to 90 nm. TRPS and MRPS return comparable concentration and size distributions in most studies, although TRPS can show artefacts on samples with significant lipoprotein co-isolation, while MRPS is essentially unaffected.
On subpopulation resolution within a polydisperse mixture, TRPS gives baseline separation of distinct populations, MRPS resolves populations clearly with the appropriate cartridge selection, and NTA returns a broadened, merged distribution where subpopulations are visible only as shoulders rather than distinct peaks.
On fluorescence-positive subpopulations, NTA-fluorescence and MRPS-fluorescence (on the ARC) both quantify labelled vesicles, but with different trade-offs. NTA-fluorescence tracks individual fluorescent particles by their scattered fluorescence and requires sufficient label brightness, while MRPS-fluorescence quantifies absolute fluorescence on every particle counted, allowing the labelled fraction to be expressed as a percentage of the total particle population with high statistical confidence.
On repeatability and reproducibility, MRPS and TRPS both outperform NTA, with intra-sample coefficients of variation below 10 percent versus 30 to 40 percent reported for NanoSight under standard conditions. ZetaView NTA improves on NanoSight for concentration repeatability but does not match the resistive pulse methods.
The practical conclusion is that NTA, despite its ubiquity, gives the least defensible absolute numbers of the three. It remains the most accessible and is appropriate where the trends in a series of samples matter more than the absolute concentration, but absolute concentration values from NTA should be cross-checked against an orthogonal method before they are reported as headline numbers in a publication.
Comparing the Methods
| NTA, TRPS and MRPS: Practical Comparison | ||||
| Parameter | NTA | TRPS | MRPS | Notes |
| Physical principle | Brownian motion of scattered light | Resistive pulse through tunable elastomeric nanopore | Resistive pulse through fixed microfluidic nanoconstriction | TRPS and MRPS both apply the Coulter principle at the nanoscale |
| Lower size limit | 60 to 70 nm in practice | 40 nm with optimised pore | 50 nm with appropriate cartridge | All three lose sensitivity at the lower end of the EV size range |
| Concentration accuracy | Underestimates by 10x on polydisperse EVs | High with calibration | High; independent of polydispersity | Verified against TEM and orthogonal methods |
| Size accuracy | Biased to larger sizes on polydisperse samples | High; subpopulation resolution | High; reproduces TEM power-law distribution | NanoSight outperforms ZetaView on size; resistive methods outperform both |
| Polydispersity handling | Poor; small particles obscured | Good | Excellent | Critical for native EV preparations |
| Zeta potential | No (some platforms add it) | Yes, simultaneous with size | No | TRPS unique advantage for surface charge |
| Fluorescence | Yes; single channel typical | No | Yes on ARC; up to 3 channels | Required for subpopulation phenotyping |
| Sample preparation | Dilute; cells and debris removed | Pre-purified; defined electrolyte buffer with surfactant | Dilute; cells and debris removed | TRPS most demanding |
| Operator skill | Moderate | High; calibration and tuning needed | Low to moderate | TRPS most operator-dependent |
| Throughput | Minutes per sample | Minutes per sample plus calibration | Minutes per sample | All three compatible with routine workflows |
| Consumables | Buffer only | Nanopore modules, calibration beads | Disposable cartridges | NTA has lowest running cost |
| Instrument cost | High | Moderate to high | Moderate to high | All require substantial capital investment |
| Best for | Routine screening, fluorescent subpopulations, multi-user labs | Subpopulation resolution, zeta potential, defined samples | Absolute concentration, polydisperse samples, QC and clinical work | Often complementary rather than competing |
Choosing Between Them
The choice between the three methods depends on what the measurement is for. A few common scenarios illustrate where each method earns its place.
Routine size and concentration on cell culture supernatant EV preparations. If the laboratory needs to characterise every batch as a quality control step before downstream functional assays, and absolute concentration is less critical than relative comparisons between batches, NTA is the practical choice. The instruments are widely available, the technique is established, and the consistent bias in NTA does not affect inter-batch comparisons within the same workflow.
Absolute concentration for therapeutic-grade EV preparations. Where the concentration value will be reported in a regulatory submission, manufacturing record or quantitative dosing protocol, the inherent NTA bias becomes a problem. MRPS provides the most defensible absolute numbers, with concentration accuracy verified against orthogonal methods including transmission electron microscopy. Some manufacturing workflows now use MRPS as the primary release assay with NTA as a secondary confirmation.
Subpopulation resolution within a polydisperse preparation. Both TRPS and MRPS resolve subpopulations that NTA cannot separate. TRPS has the longer track record on this specific application; MRPS with the ARC adds fluorescence phenotyping that allows subpopulations to be defined by surface marker as well as by size.
Zeta potential and surface charge characterisation. TRPS remains the established choice where surface charge is an endpoint of interest, since size, concentration and zeta potential are measured in the same workflow. Neither NTA nor MRPS provides zeta potential as a standard output, although some specialised NTA configurations can be adapted for it.
Small EVs and exomeres. The sub-60 nm range is challenging for all three methods. TRPS with an optimised small-pore module is the most reliable, MRPS with the appropriate cartridge is competitive, and NTA misses the population entirely. For research focused specifically on small EVs and exomeres, asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation or single-particle interferometric reflectance imaging (SP-IRIS) on the NanoView platform are complementary methods to consider.
Multi-platform comparison and orthogonal validation. MISEV2023 explicitly recommends combining orthogonal methods where the application warrants it. A typical defensible workflow for a biomarker discovery or clinical EV study combines NTA for accessibility and the published comparison framework, MRPS for absolute concentration, and an imaging method such as transmission electron microscopy or SP-IRIS for vesicle morphology and tetraspanin verification.
Sample Preparation Across the Three Methods
All three methods require samples that are free of cells, large debris and air bubbles. Whole biofluids cannot be measured directly; a low-speed centrifugation step (typically 300 to 2000 g for 10 minutes) followed by 0.22 micron filtration is standard upstream preparation. Beyond that baseline, the sample preparation requirements diverge.
NTA accepts dilute samples in any common physiological buffer. The instrument software requires the particle count rate to be within a defined working range (typically 20 to 100 particles per frame), so most EV samples need dilution by a factor of 100 to 10000 in PBS. Optimal measurement requires that the dilution buffer is free of nanoparticulate contamination, which is more difficult to ensure than it sounds and is a common source of measurement noise.
TRPS is the most demanding of the three. Samples must be in a defined electrolyte (PBS is standard) with surfactant added to prevent aggregation; 0.03 percent Tween 20 is the widely cited concentration although BSA at 0.1 percent is recommended in some protocols as a gentler alternative. Calibration beads of known size and concentration must be measured before each sample to convert pulse magnitudes to absolute particle sizes. Nanopore modules clog readily on samples that contain residual protein aggregates, lipoproteins or partially purified preparations, and the instrument requires periodic re-tuning during a measurement session.
MRPS is intermediate in sample preparation demand. The disposable cartridges accept dilute samples in PBS or comparable buffers. Bovine serum albumin at 0.1 percent in DPBS is recommended for biofluid measurements to minimise non-specific interactions and to align with MISEV orthogonal comparison recommendations. Cartridges are matched to expected particle size range and replaced for each measurement set, eliminating the calibration drift and clogging recovery issues that affect TRPS. The small sample volume (3 microlitres into the cartridge reservoir) is an advantage for precious samples but means that any volume-related dilution error is amplified.
| Practical Guidance |
| For most EV laboratory workflows, the practical question is rarely "which method should we own" but "which method should we run today". NTA is appropriate for routine screening, batch-to-batch comparison and fluorescence subpopulation work, and the limitations are now well enough characterised that they can be accounted for in interpretation. Where absolute concentration matters or where polydispersity is significant, layering an MRPS measurement on top of NTA gives the defensible absolute numbers without losing the NTA comparison framework. TRPS earns its place where zeta potential is needed alongside size and concentration, where subpopulation resolution is the primary endpoint, or where samples are well purified and the operator is willing to invest in the calibration discipline the technique demands. All three methods should be reported with the sample preparation method, the buffer composition, the measurement settings and an orthogonal validation step (typically transmission electron microscopy or tetraspanin verification) as MISEV2023 recommends. |
Cell Guidance Systems EV Characterisation Products and Services
Cell Guidance Systems supports EV sizing and characterisation workflows through both products and services.
NTA Size Profiling Service. For laboratories that need particle size and concentration data without in-house instrumentation, the NTA Size Profiling Service provides validated NTA measurement on customer-supplied samples, with appropriate sample handling and reporting.
EV and Exosome Services. For more complex characterisation projects involving multiple orthogonal methods, the EV and Exosome Services team handles isolation, characterisation, freeze-drying and bespoke EV preparation for research and therapeutic development.
Exo-spin and EVlution TFF. For sample preparation upstream of any of the three sizing methods discussed here, Exo-spin columns provide SEC-based purification at analytical scale, and EVlution TFF provides tangential flow filtration for larger volume preparation. Clean, well purified samples make every downstream sizing method work better.
ExoLISA Assays. Where tetraspanin verification is needed alongside size and concentration data, ExoLISA Assays provide quantitative measurement of CD9, CD63 and CD81 as orthogonal markers of EV identity.
For introductory background on EVs and exosomes, our exosome resources page covers the broader context of EV biology and applications.
References
[1] Welsh JA, Goberdhan DCI, O'Driscoll L, Buzás EI, Blenkiron C, Bussolati B, Cai H, Di Vizio D, Driedonks TAP, Erdbrügger U, Falcon-Perez JM, Fu QL, Hill AF, Lenassi M, Lim SK, Mahoney MG, Mohanty S, Möller A, Nieuwland R, Ochiya T, Sahoo S, Torrecilhas AC, Zheng L, Zijlstra A, Abuelreich S, Bagabas R, Bergese P, Bridges EM, Brucale M, Burger D, Carney RP, Cocucci E, Colombo F, Crescitelli R, Hanser E, Harris AL, Haughey NJ, Hendrix A, Ivanov AR, Jovanovic-Talisman T, Kruh-Garcia NA, Ku'ulei-Lyn Faustino V, Kyburz D, Lasser C, Lennon KM, Lötvall J, Maddox AL, Martens-Uzunova ES, Mizenko RR, Newman LA, Ridolfi A, Rohde E, Rojalin T, Rowland A, Saftics A, Sandau US, Saugstad JA, Shekari F, Swift S, Théry C, Tolomeo AM, Tosar JP, Turchinovich A, Verweij FJ, Wauben MHM, Witwer KW, Zaborowski M, van Niel G, Nolan JP, Nieuwland R, Hochberg FH, Gho YS, Witwer KW, Théry C, Russell AE, Andriantsitohaina R, Hill AF, Mathivanan S, Coumans FAW, Buzás EI. Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles (MISEV2023): From basic to advanced approaches. J Extracell Vesicles. 2024;13(2):e12404.
[2] Bachurski D, Schuldner M, Nguyen PH, Malz A, Reiners KS, Grenzi PC, Babatz F, Schauss AC, Hansen HP, Hallek M, Pogge von Strandmann E. Extracellular vesicle measurements with nanoparticle tracking analysis: An accuracy and repeatability comparison between NanoSight NS300 and ZetaView. J Extracell Vesicles. 2019;8(1):1596016.
[3] Bonner SE, Willms E. Single vesicle analysis: New insights into extracellular vesicle biology. Front Mol Biosci. 2024;11:1340335.
[4] van der Pol E, Sturk A, van Leeuwen T, Nieuwland R, Coumans F. Standardization of extracellular vesicle measurements by flow cytometry through vesicle diameter approximation. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(6):1236-1245.
[5] Maas SLN, de Vrij J, van der Vlist EJ, Geragousian B, van Bloois L, Mastrobattista E, Schiffelers RM, Wauben MHM, Broekman MLD, Nolte-'t Hoen ENM. Possibilities and limitations of current technologies for quantification of biological extracellular vesicles and synthetic mimics. J Control Release. 2015;200:87-96.
[6] Vogel R, Coumans FAW, Maltesen RG, Boëng AN, Bonnier PE, Broekman ML, Broom MF, Buzás EI, Christiansen G, Hajji N, Kristensen SR, Kuehn MJ, Lund SM, Maas SLN, Nieuwland R, Osteikoetxea X, Römer R, Sardar Sinha M, Simonsen JB, Søndergaard EKL, Stensballe A, Szabó MP, Vlassov A, Willms E, Wauben MHM, Nolte-'t Hoen ENM, Hochberg FH, Sivakumaran M, Webber J, Salvi R, Skog J, Pegtel DM, Sturk A. A standardized method to determine the concentration of extracellular vesicles using tunable resistive pulse sensing. J Extracell Vesicles. 2016;5:31242.
[7] de Rond L, Coumans FAW, Nieuwland R, van Leeuwen TG, van der Pol E. Deriving extracellular vesicle size from scatter intensities measured by flow cytometry. Curr Protoc Cytom. 2018;86(1):e43.
[8] Akers JC, Ramakrishnan V, Yang I, Hua W, Mao Y, Carter BS, Chen CC. Optimizing preservation of extracellular vesicular miRNAs derived from clinical cerebrospinal fluid. Cancer Biomark. 2016;17(2):125-132.
[9] Bachurski D, Schuldner M, Nguyen PH, Malz A, Reiners KS, Grenzi PC, Babatz F, Schauss AC, Hansen HP, Hallek M, Pogge von Strandmann E. Extracellular vesicle measurements with nanoparticle tracking analysis. J Extracell Vesicles. 2019;8(1):1596016.
[10] Anderson W, Lane R, Korbie D, Trau M. Observations of tunable resistive pulse sensing for exosome analysis: Improving system sensitivity and stability. Langmuir. 2015;31(23):6577-6587.
[11] van der Pol E, Coumans FAW, Grootemaat AE, Gardiner C, Sargent IL, Harrison P, Sturk A, van Leeuwen TG, Nieuwland R. Particle size distribution of exosomes and microvesicles determined by transmission electron microscopy, flow cytometry, nanoparticle tracking analysis, and resistive pulse sensing. J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(7):1182-1192.
[12] Bachurski D, et al. Standardized procedure to measure the size distribution of extracellular vesicles together with other particles in biofluids with microfluidic resistive pulse sensing. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0249603.
[13] Arab T, Mallick ER, Huang Y, Dong L, Liao Z, Zhao Z, Gololobova O, Smith B, Haughey NJ, Pienta KJ, Slusher BS, Tarwater PM, Tosar JP, Zivkovic AM, Vreeland WN, Paulaitis ME, Witwer KW. Characterization of extracellular vesicles and synthetic nanoparticles with four orthogonal single-particle analysis platforms. J Extracell Vesicles. 2021;10(6):e12079.
[14] Akers JC, Hua W, Li H, Ramakrishnan V, Yang Z, Quan K, Zhu W, Li J, Figueroa J, Hirshman BR, Miller B, Piccioni D, Ringel F, Komotar R, Messer K, Goldlust S, Cordia P, Chen CC. A cerebrospinal fluid microRNA signature as biomarker for glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(40):68769-68779.
[15] Welsh JA, Killingsworth B, Kepley J, Traynor T, McKinnon K, Savage J, Appel D, Aldape K, Camphausen K, Berzofsky JA, Ivanov AR, Ghiran IC, Aleman J, Jones JC. A simple, high-throughput method of protein and label removal from extracellular vesicle samples. Nanoscale. 2021;13(6):3737-3745.
[16] Kim H, et al. High-throughput multi-gate microfluidic resistive pulse sensing for biological nanoparticle detection. Lab Chip. 2023;23(8):2106-2117.
[17] Tian Y, Ma L, Gong M, Su G, Zhu S, Zhang W, Wang S, Li Z, Chen C, Li L, Wu L, Yan X. Protein profiling and sizing of extracellular vesicles from colorectal cancer patients via flow cytometry. ACS Nano. 2018;12(1):671-680.
[18] Lyu TS, Ahn Y, Im YJ, Kim SS, Lee KH, Kim J, Choi Y, Lee D, Kang E, Jin G, Hwang J, Lee SJ, Cho JA. The characterization of exosomes from fibrosarcoma cell and the useful usage of dynamic light scattering (DLS) for their evaluation. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0231994.
[19] Kestens V, Bozatzidis V, De Temmerman PJ, Ramaye Y, Roebben G. Validation of a particle tracking analysis method for the size determination of nano- and microparticles. J Nanopart Res. 2017;19(8):271.
[20] Coumans FAW, Brisson AR, Buzás EI, Dignat-George F, Drees EEE, El-Andaloussi S, Emanueli C, Gasecka A, Hendrix A, Hill AF, Lacroix R, Lee Y, van Leeuwen TG, Mackman N, Mäger I, Nolan JP, van der Pol E, Pegtel DM, Sahoo S, Siljander PRM, Sturk G, de Wever O, Nieuwland R. Methodological guidelines to study extracellular vesicles. Circ Res. 2017;120(10):1632-1648.
IMAGE: NTA, TRPS and MRPS single-particle measurement principles compared CREDIT CellGS
Related Cell Guidance Systems Products and Services
- NTA Size Profiling Service
- EV and Exosome Services
- Exo-spin EV Purification Columns
- EVlution TFF
- ExoLISA Assays
