Size exclusion chromatography is the preferred method for isolating EVs from low volumes of urine for mass spectrometry-based metabolomics analysis

To optimize a reliable method for EV isolation from small volumes of urine, we first compared the yield and purity of EVs isolated from two initial volumes of rat urine (0.5 mL or 1 mL) using three independent isolation methods (Fig. 1): ultracentrifugation with filtration (UC), size exclusion chromatography (SEC), and a proprietary magnetic bead-based commercial method (MBB). After isolation, we measured the size distribution and concentration of EVs from samples using nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). NTA showed all three methods resulted in EVs of similar size (Additional file 2: Figure S1), though there were differences in the average size of detected particles (Additional file 3: Table S1). We found that the MBB method provided the highest concentration (particles/mL) of EVs at both initial volumes, but SEC resulted in the highest number of total EVs (yield) based upon the entire volume of working solution obtained by each method (Additional file 2: Figure S1). UC was least efficient (Additional file 2: Figure S1). Typical yields from 0.5 mL of rat urine using the SEC method ranged from 1.42E9 to 2.82E9 particles/mL, while 1.0 mL of urine yielded between 4.66E9 to 1.13E10 particles/mL (Additional file 3: Table S1). We next used cryogenic electron microscopy (Cryo EM) to confirm EV enrichment and analyze the biophysical properties of isolated vesicles. We found that UC and SEC yielded EVs with of varied sizes, though most within the expected range of < 200 nm in diameter (Additional file 2: Figure S2). The MBB method, however, seemed to yield smaller vesicles of a more uniform size, an observation other groups have made using polymer-based EV isolation methods (Additional file 2: Figure S2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Extracellular vesicle (EV) isolation method comparison workflow. EVs were isolated from two different initial volumes of urine (0.5 mL or 1 mL) from rats exposed to either 0 Gy (sham) or 13 Gy, X-irradiation, using 3 independent methods; ultracentrifugation with filtration (UC), size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) or a proprietary magnetic bead-based method (MBB). EV isolates were then characterized using cryogenic electron microscopy, nanoparticle tracking analysis and immunoblot array. Finally, the biochemical content of EVs was evaluated using untargeted quadrupole time of flight (QToF) mass spectrometry for both overall detection signals and potential contaminants

To compare resultant mass spectrometry data quality, we next investigated small molecule profiles of EVs isolated via each method separately using quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry coupled with ultra-performance liquid chromatography (QToF-LCMS)-based untargeted metabolomics analysis. The total number of features (m/z and retention time pairs) identified for UC (0.5 mL = 4837 and 1 mL = 5141) and SEC (0.5 mL = 5031 and 1 mL = 5096) were comparable. EVs isolated using the MBB method had a significantly higher number of detected features (0.5 mL = 7450 and 1 mL = 7135) (Fig. 2A). Though increasing the starting volume of urine to 1 mL increased EV yield and concentration, the number of detected features only marginally increased (Fig. 2A). Interestingly, examination of total ion current chromatograms (TICs) and Manhattan plots revealed a cluster of features which were uniquely detected within the MBB samples (outlined in red, Fig. 2B–C). Further investigation of the unique chromatographic peaks in MBB samples revealed m/z patterns which were consistent with polymer contaminants. EV preparation using the UC and SEC methods generated MS spectra free of contaminants with profiles similar to each other. We did not observe significant differences in the total mass spectrometry signal between EVs derived from either 0.5 mL or 1 mL of urine (Fig. 2B–C). There was significant overlap in the number of unique features identified by each isolation method, with both 0.5 mL and 1 mL of urine (Fig. 2D–E). Considering the high EV yield, lack of contaminating material, quality of mass spectrometry data and high throughput capability we determined SEC as the optimal method for isolating EVs from 0.5 mL of urine.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mass spectrometry analysis of EV isolation methods. A Total number of features (positive and negative ionization) identified by each isolation method, at each starting volume of urine. B Manhattan plots showing each feature by mass-to-charge ratio (m/z, y-axis) and retention time (rt, x-axis). Highlighted area in red shows distinct features in MBB samples which were not detected in EVs isolated by either UC or SEC. C Total ion chromatogram (TIC) plots from positive ionization mode of EV samples isolated by UC (top), SEC (middle) and MBB (bottom). Area highlighted in red shows distinct signals detected in MBB samples which were not detected in either UC or SEC samples. D–E Venn diagrams showing the number of unique features detected in EV samples isolated by each isolation method from D 0.5 mL or E 1 mL starting volume of urine

The observation of “classical” EV-markers in antibody array immunoblots was used to ascertain isolation and enrichment of bona fide EVs. In accordance with MISEV guidelines [25], we performed a detailed characterization of the EV preparations. Firstly, we evaluated the expression of transmembrane proteins (such as CD63 and CD81) as well as cytosolic proteins (such as TSG101, ALIX) in the urinary EV preparations. We found that the urinary EV preparations were positive for known EV markers including cluster of differentiation 63 (CD63), cluster of differentiation 81 (CD81), tumor susceptibility gene 101 (TSG101), ALG-2-interacting Protein X (ALIX), intracellular adhesion molecule (ICAM), Annexin5, epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), and flotilin1 (Flot1) (Additional file 2: Figure S2). Importantly, pooled samples of fractions not expected to contain EVs showed no enrichment in these targets (Additional file 2: Figure S2).

Pilot study validates EV isolation method and potential utility of urinary EVs as a source of small molecule radiation biomarkers

We next performed a pilot study to investigate the utility of urinary EVs as biomarkers of radiation injury. We isolated EVs using our SEC method from 0.5 mL of urine from a small cohort of rats (n = 5 per group) either sham irradiated or exposed to 13 Gy leg-out PBI and performed QToF-LCMS to characterize their small molecule profiles (Fig. 3A). Principal component analysis (PCA) demonstrated distinct separation in the small molecule profiles of EVs from irradiated rats (Fig. 3B). Visualization using a volcano plot identified many features which were significantly dysregulated (Fig. 3C). A heatmap also showed distinct differential expression patterns between irradiated and sham irradiated EV samples (Fig. 3D). Overall, we identified a total of 72 features which were significantly altered (FDR adjusted p-value < 0.05) in the radiation group (Additional file 3: Table S2). Ultimately, we putatively annotated 21 of these features covering a broad range of endogenous metabolites such as lipids, prostaglandins, peptides or amino acid derivatives, and small molecules such as adrenaline (Additional file 3:Table S3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

EVs isolated from small volumes of urine demonstrate potential as a source of biomarkers for ionizing radiation exposure. A Workflow showing EV isolation process from small volumes of urine to untargeted QToF metabolomics analysis. B Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot demonstrates distinct separation between EVs isolated from sham irradiated rats (yellow) vs. rats exposed to 13 Gy irradiation (blue). C Volcano plot reveals a significant number of detected features are significantly dysregulated. Each dot represents a feature (m/z and rt pair) detected by QToF-MS. Grey = no significance, green = significant by fold change (> 2 or < 0.5), blue = significant by FDR-adjusted p-value (< 0.05) and red = significant by both FDR-adjusted p-value (< 0.05) and fold change (> 2 or < 0.5). Student’s two-tailed t-test with homogeneous variance was used for comparing irradiated vs. sham rats. D Heatmap of features identified in irradiated and sham irradiated urinary EVs demonstrating distinct signatures. Color represents fold change with red indicating upregulation and blue indicating downregulation

Urinary EVs allow for the identification of radiation biomarkers in a large rat cohort

This pilot study confirmed the potential of urinary EVs as a source of biomarkers for radiation exposure. To build on these findings, we applied these methods to a larger cohort of 18 rats and a total of 72 rat urine samples to study biochemical profiles of urine derived EVs obtained from rats exposed to 13 Gy leg-out PBI (Fig. 4A). The WAG/RijCmcr rat model is the most advanced partial body irradiation model, used to assess mitigators of radiation injury to normal tissue [26]. This model is routinely used in our studies related to understanding long-term effects of radiation exposure and the identification, and development, of potential radiomitigators.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Validation of the potential for EVs isolated from small volumes of urine to serve as biomarkers for ionizing radiation exposure. A Abbreviated experimental design investigating utility of urinary EVs as a source of radiation biomarkers in rats exposed to 13 Gy ionizing radiation. B Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots demonstrate clear separation between EVs isolated from mice exposed to 0 Gy (blue) and 13 Gy (yellow) irradiation 1-, 14-, 30- and 90-days post-irradiation. C Rain drop plot showing distinct down-regulation of specific lipid species in the acute (24 h) time frame post-irradiation, followed by recovery and upregulation of these species 14-, 30- and 90-days post-irradiation, compared to control rats. P-value refers to FDR-adjusted p-value as determined by student’s two-tailed t-test with homogeneous variance comparing irradiated vs. sham rats at each time point

In accordance with our observations in the pilot study, LC–MS/MS-based targeted metabolomics and lipidomics revealed robust changes in urinary EV profiles following irradiation. Visualization using PCA showed distinct separation between sham and irradiated groups, starkest 24 h, and 90 days post-irradiation (Fig. 4B). No metabolites or lipids were significantly dysregulated (FDR adjusted p-value < 0.05) at either 14 or 30-days post-irradiation. Interestingly, the majority of the significantly altered molecules (FDR adjusted p-value < 0.05) post-irradiation were lipids (Additional file 3: Table 4). 24 h post irradiation, several lipid classes were downregulated including triglycerides (TAG), phosphatidylcholines (PC), sphingomyelins (SM), hexosyl ceramides (HCER), free fatty acids (FFAs), lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) and phosphatidylethanolamines (PE) (Fig. 4C, Additional file 3: Table S4). By 90 days post-irradiation, many of these lipid species had reversed in their relative abundance with several lipids showing a significant upregulation compared to sham irradiated rats (Fig. 4C). The majority of upregulated lipids 90 days post-irradiation were TAGs.

Urinary EVs demonstrate clinical utility for identifying RT biomarkers in human urine samples

Since the goal of our method comparison is to ultimately develop urinary EV-based biochemical analyses to understand how patients respond to RT in the clinic, we next sought to validate our methods in human urine samples. In a pilot study of 5 thoracic cancer patients receiving RT as a part of their treatment regimen, we collected urine pre- and immediately post-RT, and isolated EVs using the above SEC-based method. First, we validated enrichment of urine EVs using immunoblot and NTA, as described previously (Additional file 2: Figure S3). We next leveraged our UPLC-QToF-MS platform to analyze the small molecule profiles within our human urine EV samples. Similar to our findings in rat urine EVs, we detected a substantial number of features (4362 in ESI + and 3111 in ESI-) with low noise TICs (Fig. 5A). To identify biologically relevant altered metabolites, we used LC–MS/MS targeted metabolomics to quantitate the biochemical profile of human urinary EVs. Using our targeted panel consisting of 360 multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions, covering 270 polar metabolites, we were able to reliably quantify 175 MRMs, corresponding to 152 metabolites, with coefficients of variation less than 0.2, indicating stable and reliable quantification of those metabolites (Additional file 3: Table S5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Human urine EVs can be used as a biological matrix to identify the effects of radiation exposure. A Total ion chromatogram (TIC) plots of human urine EV samples generated by UPLC-QToF-MS in positive (left) and negative (right) ionization mode. B Metabolites with significant expression changes in human urine EVs post-radiotherapy, quantified using LC–MS/MS. P-values: * =  < 0.05, ** =  < 0.01, *** =  < 0.001. Student’s two-tailed t-test with homogeneous variance was used to compare changes pre- and post-radiotherapy

We next sought to identify whether these metabolite profiles significantly changed post-RT. Interestingly, we found 11 metabolites which were stably quantified and significantly altered post-RT in this pilot study (Table 1, Fig. 5B). Some of these metabolites are involved in nucleotide (Xanthylic acid, imidazole and dTTP) and folate metabolism (5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid and flavin mononucleotide). These changes may implicate signs of DNA damage and/or impaired DNA synthesis upon irradiation.

Table 1 Significantly dysregulated metabolites quantified in human urinary EVs using LC–MS/MS

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Disclaimer:

This article is autogenerated using RSS feeds and has not been created or edited by OA JF.

Click here for Source link (https://www.biomedcentral.com/)

By admin