Residual urinary extracellular vesicles in ultracentrifugation supernatants after hydrostatic filtration dialysis enrichment.

Urinary extracellular vesicles (UEVs) appear an ideal source of biomarkers for kidney and urogenital diseases. The majority of protocols designed for their isolation are based on differential centrifugation steps. However, little is still known of the type and amount of vesicles left in the supernatant. Here we used an isolation protocol for UEVs which uses hydrostatic filtration dialysis as first pre-enrichment step, followed by differential centrifugation. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM), mass spectrometry (MS), western blot, ELISA assays and tuneable resistive pulse sensing (TRPS) were used to characterise and quantify UEVs in the ultracentrifugation supernatant. TEM showed the presence of a variety of small size vesicles in the supernatant while protein identification by MS matched accurately with the protein list available in Vesiclepedia. Screening and relative quantification for specific vesicle markers showed that the supernatant was preferentially positive for CD9 and TSG101. ELISA tests for quantification of exosome revealed that 14%, was left in the supernatant with a particle diameter of 110 nm and concentration of 1.54 × 1010/ml. Here we show a comprehensive characterisation of exosomes and other small size urinary vesicles which the conventional differential centrifugation protocol may lose.

Urinary extracellular vesicles for RNA extraction: optimization of a protocol devoid of prokaryote contamination.

BACKGROUND: Urinary extracellular vesicles (UEVs) represent an ideal platform for biomarker discovery. They carry different types of RNA species, and reported profile discrepancies related to the presence/absence of 18s and 28s rRNA remain controversial. Moreover, sufficient urinary RNA yields and respective quality RNA profiles are still to be fully established. METHODS: UEVs were enriched by hydrostatic filtration dialysis, and RNA content was extracted using 7 different commercially available techniques. RNA quantity was assessed using spectrophotometry and fluorometry, whilst RNA quality was determined by capillary electrophoresis. RESULTS: The presence of prokaryotic transcriptome was stressed when cellular RNA, as a control, was spiked into the UEVs samples before RNA extraction. The presence of bacteria in hydrostatic filtration dialysis above 1,000 kDa molecular weight cut-off and in crude urine was confirmed with growth media plates. The efficiency in removing urinary bacteria was evaluated by differential centrifugation, filtration (0.22 µm filters) and chemical pretreatment (water purification tablet). For volumes of urine >200 ml, the chemical treatment provides ease of handling without affecting vesicle integrity, protein and RNA profiles. This protocol was selected to enrich RNA with 7 methods, and its respective quality and quantity were assessed. The results were given as follows: (a) Fluorometry gave more repeatability and reproducibility than spectrophotometry to assess the RNA yields, (b) UEVs were enriched with small RNA, (c) Ribosomal RNA peaks were not observed for any RNA extraction method used and (d) RNA yield was higher for column-based method designed for urinary exosome, whilst the highest relative microRNA presence was obtained using TRIzol method. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the presence of bacteria can lead to misidentification in the electrophoresis peaks. Fluorometry is more reliable than spectrophotometry. RNA isolation method must be selected in conjunction with appropriate UEV collection procedure. We also suggested that a minimum 250 ml of urine should be processed to gather enough RNA for robust quantification, qualification and downstream analysis.