Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2025
Labeling of Extracellular Vesicles for Monitoring Migration and Uptake in Cartilage Explants
Published on: October 4, 2021
Comparative effect of platelet- and mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles on human cartilage
Maria A Forteza-Genestra1,2, Miquel Antich-Rosselló1,2, Guillem Ramis-Munar3
1Cell Therapy and Tissue Engineering Group, Research Institute on Health Sciences (IUNICS), University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Spain.
Aims:
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are nanoparticles secreted by all cells, enriched in proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids related to cell-to-cell communication and vital components of cell-based therapies. Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC)-derived EVs have been studied as an alternative for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. However, their clinical translation is hindered by industrial and regulatory challenges. In contrast, platelet-derived EVs might reach clinics faster since platelet concentrates, such as platelet lysates (PL), are already used in therapeutics. Hence, we aimed to test the therapeutic potential of PL-derived extracellular vesicles (pEVs) as a new treatment for OA, which is a degenerative joint disease of articular cartilage and does not have any curative or regenerative treatment, by comparing its effects to those of human umbilical cord MSC-derived EVs (cEVs) on an ex vivo OA-induced model using human cartilage explants.
Methods:
pEVs and cEVs were isolated by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and physically characterized by nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), protein content, and purity. OA conditions were induced in human cartilage explants (10 ng/ml oncostatin M and 2 ng/ml tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα)) and treated with 1 × 109 particles of pEVs or cEVs for 14 days. Then, DNA, glycosaminoglycans (GAG), and collagen content were quantified, and a histological study was performed. EV uptake was monitored using PKH26 labelled EVs.
Results:
Significantly higher content of DNA and collagen was observed for the pEV-treated group compared to control and cEV groups. No differences were found in GAG quantification nor in EVs uptake within any treated group.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, pEVs showed better performance than cEVs in our in vitro OA model. Although further studies are needed, pEVs are shown as a potential alternative to cEVs for cell-free regenerative medicine.
