Next Article in Journal
Searching for Mechanisms of Analgesic Activity in the Group of 1H-Pyrrolo[3,4-c]pyridine-1,3(2H)-dione Derivatives—In Vitro and In Vivo Studies
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimized Protocols to Extract Total Transcripts and Proteins from Lipid-Rich Tissues
Previous Article in Journal
A GasPak-Based Ischemia Model for Studying ER Stress–Ischemia Interactions in Human Endothelial Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Omics Analyses Through Coalitional Games and Shapley Values
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Analysis of Cardiac Puncture and Perfusate Blood Collection for Murine Extracellular Vesicle Isolation

1
The Miami Project to Cure Paralysis, Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
2
The Neuroscience Program, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
3
The Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Methods Protoc. 2026, 9(2), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/mps9020040
Submission received: 15 December 2025 / Revised: 26 February 2026 / Accepted: 3 March 2026 / Published: 5 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Methods and Protocols 2025)

Abstract

Reliable characterization of circulating extracellular vesicles (EVs) in rodents may be significantly influenced by how blood is collected, yet systematic comparisons of commonly used sampling methods remain limited. Here, we directly evaluate the effects of cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection on EV yield and surface-marker profiles in naïve mice, as well as in mice subjected to neurotrauma using a contusion spinal cord injury (SCI) model. Using matched isolation procedures and MACSPlex immunophenotyping, we analyzed newly generated cardiac puncture plasma alongside previously published perfusate-derived datasets, with both cohorts matched for age, sex, weight, injury severity, and post-injury timepoint. Cardiac puncture produced substantially higher particle concentrations due to access to undiluted blood, whereas perfusate samples exhibited modest increases in select markers, such as CD9, consistent with method-associated influences on platelet-derived vesicles. Despite these quantitative differences, both approaches yielded broadly similar EV phenotypes, and SCI-associated marker patterns remained stable across sampling methods. The consistency between cardiac puncture and perfusate datasets validates the robustness of our earlier perfusate-based findings and demonstrates that key biological signatures are preserved regardless of collection technique. These results provide practical guidance for optimizing murine EV studies and underscore the importance of methodological transparency and standardization in preclinical EV research.

1. Introduction

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are critical mediators of intercellular communication and promising therapeutic agents as well as biomarkers across a wide range of physiological and pathological conditions [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Murine models provide a genetically tractable and physiologically relevant system for studying EV biology in vivo, enabling controlled investigation of EV dynamics in health and disease [8,9,10,11]. However, the limited blood volume obtainable from individual mice poses a significant technical constraint, restricting the amount of plasma available for EV isolation as well as for parallel biochemical, molecular, or pharmacological analyses [12,13]. This necessitates careful optimization of blood collection and sample preparation procedures to maximize yield, reproducibility, and analytical sensitivity [14,15,16].
Several techniques are commonly employed for mouse blood collection, each with distinct advantages and limitations depending on the study context. Cardiac puncture is a terminal blood collection method where a needle is inserted through the chest wall directly into the heart to quickly withdraw a large volume of undiluted blood. The total circulating blood volume in mice is generally about 6–8% of the animal’s body weight, and cardiac puncture typically yields approximately 50–75% of this total volume [17,18,19]. Perfusate blood collection, obtained via vascular perfusion, is a specialized technique designed to maximize total fluid recovery by washing the vasculature with buffer solution, thereby providing a larger volume sample [20]. Other common non-terminal blood collection methods in mice, such as submandibular, saphenous, and tail vein bleeding, typically yield smaller volumes of blood compared to terminal procedures [21].
Following collection, whole blood samples undergo further processing to isolate plasma, which serves as the starting material for EV isolation and analysis. Blood is typically anticoagulated immediately upon collection to prevent clotting, then centrifuged to separate plasma from cellular components. The isolated plasma fraction contains circulating EVs along with other soluble factors, making the initial volume and quality of whole blood critical for maximizing plasma yield. Consequently, the choice of blood collection method directly influences the amount and integrity of plasma obtained and thus impacts downstream EV recovery and characterization [22].
In this study, we leverage previously published perfusate-derived plasma EV data following spinal cord injury (SCI) in mice alongside newly generated cardiac puncture samples to systematically compare the two blood collection methodologies under matched experimental conditions (Figure 1) [9]. Using MACSPlex immunophenotyping as our primary analytical platform, we assessed how the choice of sampling method influences detectable EV surface marker profiles within the context of SCI-associated systemic inflammation. This work aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to support methodological standardization and improve the quality of murine EV research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

Adult female C57BL/6J mice (the Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA) were used. All housing conditions, husbandry procedures, and SCI methods are described in our previous publication [9]. For the present study, cardiac puncture samples were collected from mice euthanized at approximately 180 days of age. Perfusate-derived plasma EV data were obtained from our previously published dataset, which was generated from age-, sex-, weight-, and strain-matched female C57BL/6J mice euthanized at the same approximate age. Both cohorts underwent an identical injury paradigm consisting of a 50 kdyne thoracic contusion at the thoracic T8 level and were analyzed at the same post-injury timepoint corresponding to the subacute phase (7 days post-injury). All procedures were approved by the University of Miami Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol #22-099).

2.2. Thoracic Contusion Injury

A moderate thoracic contusion SCI was generated using a 50 kdyne impact force. Adult female C57BL/6J mice were anesthetized, and a midline incision was made to expose the dorsal vertebral column. The paraspinal muscles were gently separated to reveal the T8 vertebra, where a laminectomy was performed to expose the dorsal surface of the spinal cord without disrupting the underlying dura. The vertebral column was stabilized using clamps positioned rostral and caudal to the laminectomy site, and a 50 kdyne impact was delivered using the Infinite Horizon impactor under automated force control. All impact parameters were recorded by the device to ensure consistency across animals [23]. Following injury, musculature and skin were closed in layers, and mice received standard postoperative care including hydration support and manual bladder expression. Animals survived 7 days post-injury, representing the subacute phase of SCI in this model. At the 7-day endpoint, mice were euthanized, and blood was collected for downstream EV isolation.

2.3. Blood Collection

Perfusate-derived plasma samples were obtained from our previously published dataset [9]. Briefly, animals were euthanized via CO2 inhalation followed by thoracotomy. A blunt-tipped needle was inserted into the left ventricle and advanced toward the ascending aorta to enable transcardial perfusion with sterile 0.9% saline. The perfusion protocol was standardized across all animals, delivering a total volume of 4 mL at a constant flow rate of 8 mL/min to ensure consistent vascular clearance. Perfusate blood was collected into 0.5 M EDTA-coated collection dishes using S-Monovette® 1.2 mL blood collection syringes (22G; Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany) and immediately placed on ice, typically yielding approximately 3 mL of blood after centrifugation. No new perfusate samples were generated for the present study. For cardiac puncture samples, whole blood was collected immediately post-euthanasia by direct cardiac puncture without perfusion. A 1.2 mL K3EDTA-coated syringe fitted with a 22G blunt needle was inserted into the left ventricle, and blood was aspirated slowly to avoid ventricular collapse, typically yielding approximately 0.5 mL of blood after centrifugation.

2.4. Platelet-Free Plasma Preparation

Blood samples were centrifuged at 1000× g for 15 min at 4 °C to separate plasma from cellular components. The upper plasma layer was carefully transferred to a clean microcentrifuge tube and centrifuged again at 1500× g for 15 min at 4 °C to obtain platelet-free plasma, which was subsequently stored at −80 °C until EV isolation.

2.5. EV Isolation

EV isolation was performed according to previously described protocols [9]. Thawed platelet-free plasma was centrifuged at 14,000× g for 35 min at 4 °C to remove residual debris. Plasma was loaded onto qEVoriginal 70 nm size-exclusion chromatography columns (Izon Science, Christchurch, New Zealand) pre-equilibrated with sterile PBS. Fractions were collected in pre-chilled microcentrifuge tubes. EV-rich fractions, typically eluting between fractions 7 and 10 based on nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) and concentrated using Vivaspin® 2 centrifugal filters (5 kDa molecular weight cut-off; Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany).

2.6. Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis

EV size and concentration were determined using a NanoSight NS300 instrument (Malvern Panalytical, Malvern, UK). Samples were diluted in sterile 0.22 μm-filtered PBS to achieve an optimal particle concentration of 100–300 particles per frame. Five technical replicates per sample were acquired at room temperature, with 30 frames captured per replicate. Data were processed using NanoSight NTA software (v3.4), and results were reported as mean particle concentration (particles/mL) and modal particle diameter (nm). Total particle yield per animal was calculated by multiplying the particle concentration (particles/mL) by the total plasma volume obtained from each collection method (cardiac puncture: ~0.5 mL; perfusate blood: ~3 mL).

2.7. Multiplex Bead-Based Flow Cytometric Analysis of EV Surface Proteins by MACSPlex Exosome Kit Mouse

EV surface proteins were analyzed using the MACSPlex Exosome Kit, Mouse (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) according to previously described methods [9]. SEC-isolated EVs were adjusted to 1 × 109 particles/mL and incubated with antibody-coated capture beads under gentle agitation at room temperature for one hour. Fluorochrome-conjugated detection antibodies against the tetraspanins CD9, CD63, and CD81 were used to confirm successful EV binding. Following washes, bead populations were analyzed using a CytoFLEX flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA) and gated based on their fluorescence profiles in the PE and FITC channels. Data were processed using FlowJo v10.10.0. Background fluorescence from buffer-only controls was subtracted, and CD9 expression was used for normalization.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism v10. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Comparisons between blood collection methods were performed using unpaired t-tests with Welch’s correction for parametric data or Mann–Whitney U tests for non-parametric data. For comparisons involving two independent variables, two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test was applied. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates per group. Perfusate-derived data were obtained from a previously published dataset comprising n = 4 biological replicates for the naïve group and n = 3 for the 50 kdyne SCI group. For MACSPlex flow cytometric analyses, all biological replicates were acquired in technical duplicate on the flow cytometer. All statistical tests are specified in the figure legends. Significance levels are indicated as * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, and **** p < 0.0001.

3. Results

3.1. Cardiac Puncture Yields Higher Particle Concentration but Comparable Total Particle Recovery

To evaluate the impact of blood collection methodology on plasma-derived EV yield, we compared cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection using NTA. Particle concentration analysis revealed that cardiac puncture consistently produced significantly higher concentrations than perfusate blood collection in both naïve and injured animals. In naïve mice, cardiac puncture yielded a mean concentration of 6.47 × 109 particles/mL compared to 2.09 × 109 particles/mL for perfusate blood, representing approximately a 3.1-fold increase (p < 0.01) (Figure 2a). Similarly, in 50 kdyne SCI animals, cardiac puncture demonstrated a mean concentration of 6.93 × 109 particles/mL compared to 1.80 × 109 particles/mL for perfusate blood, a 3.9-fold increase in particle concentration (p < 0.05) (Figure 2b). No significant differences in particle size distribution were observed between collection methods in either group (Supplementary Figure S1). A subset of perfusate samples in the previously published dataset yielded particle concentrations below the minimum threshold required for reliable MACSPlex quantification (1 × 109 particles/mL) and were therefore excluded from surface marker analysis as previously described. All cardiac puncture samples produced measurable EV concentrations. However, when accounting for the total plasma volume obtained by each method (cardiac puncture: ~0.5 mL; perfusate: ~3 mL), total particle yield per animal showed a trend toward higher recovery with perfusate blood collection in both naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups, though these differences did not reach statistical significance (Figure 2c,d).

3.2. Perfusate Blood Collection Enriches CD9 Expression in Naïve EVs

To characterize the tetraspanin composition of EVs isolated by each method, we performed MACSPlex analysis targeting the canonical EV markers CD81, CD63, and CD9. In both naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups, CD9 was the most abundantly detected tetraspanin, consistent across both collection methods (p < 0.0001). Notably, perfusate blood-derived EVs exhibited significantly higher CD9 expression compared to cardiac puncture samples in the naïve group (p < 0.001) (Figure 3a). However, no significant difference in CD9 expression was observed between collection methods in the 50 kdyne SCI group (Figure 3b). CD81 and CD63 were detected at substantially lower levels across all samples, with no significant differences between collection methods. Comprehensive MACSPlex profiling across all 39 surface markers revealed that both collection methods produced qualitatively similar binding profiles, with the same subset of markers consistently detected across naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups (Figure 3c,d).

3.3. Cardiac Puncture-Derived EVs Exhibit Higher Prominin-1 Expression in Naïve Mice

To enable direct comparison of EV surface marker profiles between cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods, MACSPlex intensities were normalized to CD9, the most abundant tetraspanin detected across all samples. This approach accounted for differences in particle concentration and baseline tetraspanin levels, facilitating accurate assessment of relative marker expression between collection methods (Figure 4a,b). Comparative surface marker profiling revealed largely consistent expression patterns between the two collection methods, with the majority of markers showing no significant differences. Volcano plot analysis identified Prominin-1, CD41, and CD11b as markers surpassing the differential expression threshold (Figure 4c). CD11b displayed low mean expression intensity (<0.2) and was excluded from interpretation to avoid overrepresenting background noise (Supplementary Figure S2a). Prominin-1 remained a key marker of differential expression, with quantitative analysis revealing 2.6-fold higher levels in cardiac puncture-derived EVs compared to perfusate blood-derived EVs from naïve mice (p < 0.01), a finding reproduced and validated upon inclusion of the fourth biological replicate collected on a separate experimental day (Figure 4d). Conversely, CD41 was significantly elevated in perfusate-derived naïve EVs compared to cardiac puncture samples, with quantitative analysis revealing 2.3-fold higher levels in perfusate-derived EVs (p < 0.05) (Figure 4d).

3.4. Surface Marker Profiles Remain Consistent Between Collection Methods in 50 Kdyne Subacute SCI Mice

To assess whether the collection method-dependent differences observed in naïve animals were maintained following SCI, MACSPlex analysis was performed on plasma-derived EVs from 50 kdyne SCI mice (thoracic T8 contusion injury using the Infinite Horizons impactor) collected via both cardiac puncture and perfusate blood methods. Surface marker intensities were normalized to CD9 to control for variations in particle number and tetraspanin content, enabling direct comparison between collection approaches (Figure 5a,b). In contrast to naïve animals, comparative profiling of 50 kdyne SCI samples revealed no significant differences in surface marker expression between the two collection methods. Volcano plot analysis identified CD2 as the only marker exceeding the differential expression (Figure 5c). However, CD2 displayed minimal baseline signal (<0.2) and was therefore excluded to prevent misinterpretation of low-abundance events (Supplementary Figure S2b). Additionally, direct comparison between naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups within cardiac-puncture-derived samples revealed no significant injury-induced changes in surface marker profiles (Supplementary Figure S3).

4. Discussion

This study addresses a critical methodological challenge in murine EV research regarding how blood collection techniques influence EV yield and characterization. Specifically, we provide a systematic evaluation comparing cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods and their impact on particle yield, tetraspanin abundance, and EV surface-marker profiles under both homeostatic and SCI conditions. By integrating newly generated cardiac puncture data with previously published perfusate-derived EV datasets, we directly assess methodological differences and validate the robustness of prior findings under matched experimental conditions [9].
Although this study integrates newly collected cardiac puncture samples with previously generated perfusate-derived datasets, several steps were implemented to minimize batch-related variability and ensure biological comparability. Both datasets were produced under closely matched experimental conditions, including identical mouse strain, sex, age, injury severity (50 kdyne), and post-injury survival period (7 days). EV isolation, NTA, and MACSPlex analyses were performed by the same personnel using the same protocols, instrument settings, and reagent lots whenever possible [14,24]. All instruments were calibrated using identical standards, and data processing followed an unchanged analytical workflow. A uniform QC threshold of 1 × 109 particles/mL for MACSPlex analysis, as recommended by the manufacturer, was applied consistently across both datasets prior to downstream analysis, and CD9 normalization was applied uniformly to control for differences in particle input and tetraspanin abundance between datasets. These measures substantially reduce the likelihood of technical drift between datasets and support the interpretation that observed differences between blood collection methods primarily reflect methodological or biological effects rather than batch artifacts. Nevertheless, the cross-dataset design represents an inherent limitation of this study, as samples were not collected simultaneously, and the possibility of residual batch-related variation cannot be completely excluded.
Consistent with prior studies, our data underscore the pronounced effects of blood collection technique on EV particle concentration and total yield, emphasizing the need for methodological standardization [25]. Cardiac puncture yielded substantially higher particle concentrations compared to perfusate blood collection, likely reflecting the recovery of undiluted blood and the avoidance of dilution effects inherent to perfusion-based sampling. Notably, several samples in the previously published perfusate-derived dataset fell below the minimal particle threshold required for reliable MACSPlex analysis, resulting in the exclusion of seven samples from downstream quantification [9], whereas all cardiac puncture samples exceeded this threshold and were successfully analyzed. These observations highlight a critical distinction between particle concentration, absolute recovery, and practical assay utility, while cardiac puncture produces more concentrated samples and improves assay success rates, perfusion compensates through larger volumes, potentially mobilizing additional EV populations from the vasculature. Other studies have similarly reported that inferior vena cava puncture under continuous cardiac perfusion yielded approximately 2.1 times more undiluted blood than standard cardiac puncture without altering cellular composition or viability [20]. It should be noted, however, that this blood was not processed into plasma or plasma-enriched EVs, and downstream applicability may therefore differ.
Our analysis further revealed that CD9, a tetraspanin widely recognized as a key platelet EV marker, was the most abundantly detected marker across both collection methods and animal groups. Because MACSPlex assays were performed using an equal particle input for all samples, the higher CD9 signal detected in perfusate-derived EVs from naïve mice indicates a methodological enrichment of CD9+ vesicles relative to total particle number, rather than differences in overall EV abundance. This pattern suggests that perfusion may selectively increase the proportion of platelet-derived vesicles potentially through mechanical shear, altered vascular flow, or dislodgement of platelet aggregates during the flushing process mechanisms, that are well documented to promote platelet activation and EV shedding [26,27]. It should also be noted that the anticoagulant type and concentration differed between methods, with 0.5 M EDTA in collection dishes for perfusate and K3EDTA in syringes for cardiac puncture, which could influence platelet activation or vesicle release and may contribute to the observed differences in CD9 signal [28].
Beyond platelet-associated markers, Prominin-1 (CD133), a pentaspan membrane glycoprotein and stem/progenitor cell marker, was significantly elevated in EVs isolated from naïve cardiac blood plasma compared to naïve perfusate plasma EVs [29]. Prominin-1 has been reported to actively induce EV formation by binding cholesterol-enriched regions of the plasma membrane and remodeling membrane curvature at specialized protrusions such as microvilli [30]. Its interaction with cholesterol is critical for EV biogenesis, influencing vesicle morphology and stability, and mutations affecting this interaction substantially reduce EV production. While blood collection techniques influence our measurements, biological variables independent of collection method, such as systemic lipid metabolism, dietary cholesterol intake, or cellular membrane composition, may also modulate Prominin-1-mediated EV formation and stability [31,32,33].
For comparisons in the subacute SCI model at a severity of 50 kdyne, surface marker expression profiles of plasma-derived EVs were consistent between cardiac puncture and perfusate collection methods. Additionally, when comparing naïve and 50 kdyne SCI samples within each collection method independently, neither approach detected significant injury-induced alterations in surface marker profiles, demonstrating consistency across methodologies. These observations align with our prior work characterizing circulating EV dynamics after different severities of SCI, which identified prominent platelet-associated vesicle signatures and a characteristic tetraspanin profile marked by abundant CD9 and low CD63 and CD81 detection. In this study, those same features were preserved regardless of plasma collection method, suggesting that SCI-driven biological changes, rather than blood collection technique, are the primary determinants of the observed EV phenotypes.
While cardiac puncture provided significantly higher particle concentration, total particle yield per animal was comparable between both collection methods. This stability in total particle recovery, combined with consistent surface-marker profiles across methods, reinforces the distinction between EV concentration and EV phenotype, supporting the robustness of previously reported SCI-associated EV signatures. Consequently, our data affirm that perfusate collection remains a reliable and robust method within this pathological context, preserving confidence in prior and future biomarker investigations using this technique. While both methods yield biologically consistent EV profiles in the context of SCI, validating the robustness of our previously published perfusate-derived findings, several practical considerations favor cardiac puncture for future studies. The higher particle concentration achieved through cardiac puncture reduces concerns about dilution-related artifacts that could influence downstream assays, particularly when analyzing low-abundance EV cargo or detecting subtle biological differences between experimental groups. An additional practical advantage of cardiac puncture relates to assay success rate. In our prior perfusate-derived datasets, several samples fell below the minimum particle concentration required for reliable MACSPlex quantification, resulting in the exclusion of seven samples from downstream analysis [9]. In contrast, all cardiac puncture samples in the current dataset exceeded this concentration threshold and were successfully analyzed. This difference highlights a key limitation of perfusate blood collection, dilution during perfusion increases the likelihood of samples dropping below assay detection limits, thereby reducing usable sample numbers and potentially introducing bias. The consistently higher concentration obtained via cardiac puncture mitigates this issue, improving assay reliability and overall data retention.
Beyond phenotypic characterization, circulating plasma-derived EVs from SCI animals have been shown to exert measurable functional effects in vitro and in vivo, underscoring the biological relevance of the EV populations characterized in the present study. Plasma EVs isolated from SCI mice induced pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion and neuronal apoptosis in vitro, and systemic administration of these EVs was sufficient to impair neurological function in intact recipient animals, implicating circulating EVs as active mediators of secondary injury cascades following neurotrauma [34]. Consistent with this, circulating plasma EVs derived from septic mice have similarly been shown to selectively activate microglia in vitro in a dose-dependent manner, with conditioned media from EV-treated microglial cultures subsequently inducing neuronal apoptosis, and intracerebroventricular administration of these EVs provoking a marked innate immune response in the brain in vivo [35]. Together, these findings highlight the broader importance of circulating EV phenotype and subpopulation composition in determining downstream biological activity. While functional characterization of plasma EVs was beyond the scope of the present methodological study, future investigations should examine whether the collection method-dependent differences in EV subpopulation composition observed here, particularly the enrichment of platelet-derived vesicles in perfusate samples, translate into measurable differences in biological potency. Such studies would likely require pooling of samples across animals to achieve sufficient EV quantities for replicated functional assays, as has been demonstrated in prior plasma EV functional studies [34].
Overall, our findings demonstrate that although cardiac puncture consistently provides higher particle concentration, both cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection produce broadly similar EV populations, with only modest quantitative differences whose magnitude depends on physiological state. The consistency between these newly generated cardiac puncture datasets and our previously published perfusate-derived EV profiles further validates the robustness of the earlier findings and highlights the reproducibility of core biological signatures across sampling methods. These results underscore the importance of methodological transparency and standardization in murine EV research, as differences in blood collection can influence specific readouts without altering global EV phenotypes [13,16]. Nevertheless, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the broader applicability of these findings. This study was conducted under a single biological context, specifically female C57BL/6J mice at 7 days post-SCI and should therefore be interpreted as a controlled methodological comparison rather than a comprehensive evaluation across sex, strain, or injury stage. Furthermore, our analyses focused on EV recovery and surface-marker phenotyping and did not assess biological function, meaning the present data do not establish functional equivalence between EV preparations obtained by the two collection methods. This is particularly relevant given that plasma EV isolates contain vesicles from multiple cellular sources, and assay-dependent outcomes such as cellular uptake or inflammatory signaling may vary by recipient cell type and experimental conditions. Future studies should extend this comparison across sexes and post-injury timepoints and incorporate appropriately powered functional testing to determine how collection method influences downstream biological readouts.

5. Conclusions

In summary, this study systematically evaluates how blood collection techniques influence the quantitative and phenotypic properties of plasma-derived EVs in both naïve and SCI mice. Although cardiac puncture consistently yielded higher particle concentrations, both cardiac puncture and perfusate methods achieved comparable total particle recovery per animal and elicited similar surface-marker profiles, indicating that global EV phenotypes remain stable across sampling approaches. Several perfusate-derived samples in the previously published dataset fell below the minimal particle threshold required for reliable MACSPlex analysis and were excluded from downstream quantification, whereas all cardiac puncture samples were successfully analyzed, highlighting a practical advantage of cardiac puncture in retaining usable samples. The cross-validation performed in this study, comparing newly generated cardiac puncture data with previously published perfusate-derived EV datasets, confirms the reproducibility and robustness of the earlier findings. This demonstrates that the biological signatures identified previously are valid, even across different blood collection methods, and reinforces confidence in the interpretability of prior perfusate-based studies. While methodological choices, particularly regarding blood acquisition, can introduce measurable differences in EV concentration, yield, and specific marker abundance, these did not obscure biologically driven injury effects, underscoring the reliability of perfusate-based sampling within SCI studies. At the same time, cardiac puncture offers several practical advantages for future murine EV research. Higher particle concentration supports assays requiring high particle density, and the shorter procedure time and reduced technical complexity facilitate implementation across research settings. Together, these findings provide a framework for selecting appropriate blood collection techniques in murine EV research. While our findings are specific to female C57BL/6J mice at the 7-day subacute SCI timepoint, they demonstrate that, despite the practical advantages of cardiac puncture, prior perfusate-based studies remain valid and biologically informative. Additional studies across different experimental contexts would further benefit this area of method development. Clarifying how sampling strategies shape EV readouts will strengthen the interpretability of preclinical biomarker studies and support reproducible pipelines for translational EV research.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/mps9020040/s1, Figure S1: NTA mean particle size comparison between cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection in naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups. Figure S2: CD11b and CD2 surface marker expression comparing collection methods in naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups. Figure S3: Volcano plot of surface marker expression between naïve and 50 kdyne SCI groups in cardiac puncture-derived plasma EVs.

Author Contributions

All authors (J.C., S.T.A., E.P., T.A., M.G. and D.D.P.) contributed to the conception and design of the study, data interpretation, methodological input, and provided critical feedback. J.C. performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and prepared the figures. S.T.A., E.P. and T.A. assisted with experiments. J.C. drafted the manuscript. M.G. and D.D.P. supervised the study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Buoniconti Fund and the Miami Project to Cure Paralysis. Damien D. Pearse gratefully acknowledges the John M. and Jocelyn H.K. Watkins Distinguished Chair in Cell Therapies.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the University of Miami Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol # 22-099; approved 14 October 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Surgery Facility and the Division of Veterinary Resources (DVR) staff for their essential support throughout this project. We are also grateful to the LPLC Animal Core, led by Alexander Marcillo, for providing oversight and infrastructure. We acknowledge Ramon German, Miguel Martinez, and Maria Quiala Acosta for their assistance with pre- and post-operative care, behavioral testing, and surgical support. We thank Dimitrios Kouroupis for guidance with NTA. Figures were generated using BioRender v201.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Van Niel, G.; Carter, D.R.F.; Clayton, A.; Lambert, D.W.; Raposo, G.; Vader, P. Challenges and directions in studying cell–cell communication by extracellular vesicles. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2022, 23, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mathieu, M.; Martin-Jaular, L.; Lavieu, G.; Théry, C. Specificities of secretion and uptake of exosomes and other extracellular vesicles for cell-to-cell communication. Nat. Cell. Biol. 2019, 21, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pitt, J.M.; Kroemer, G.; Zitvogel, L. Extracellular vesicles: Masters of intercellular communication and potential clinical interventions. J. Clin. Invest. 2016, 126, 1139–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kumar, M.A.; Baba, S.K.; Sadida, H.Q.; Marzooqi, S.A.; Jerobin, J.; Altemani, F.H.; Algehainy, N.; Alanazi, M.A.; Abou-Samra, A.-B.; Kumar, R.; et al. Extracellular vesicles as tools and targets in therapy for diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mori, M.A.; Ludwig, R.G.; Garcia-Martin, R.; Brandão, B.B.; Kahn, C.R. Extracellular miRNAs: From Biomarkers to Mediators of Physiology and Disease. Cell. Metab. 2019, 30, 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ghosh, M.; Pearse, D.D. The Yin and Yang of Microglia-Derived Extracellular Vesicles in CNS Injury and Diseases. Cells 2024, 13, 1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  7. Ghosh, M.; Pearse, D.D. Schwann Cell-Derived Exosomal Vesicles: A Promising Therapy for the Injured Spinal Cord. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 17317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  8. Wiklander, O.P.B.; Nordin, J.Z.; O’Loughlin, A.; Gustafsson, Y.; Corso, G.; Mäger, I.; Vader, P.; Lee, Y.; Sork, H.; Seow, Y.; et al. Extracellular vesicle in vivo biodistribution is determined by cell source, route of administration and targeting. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2015, 4, 26316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cooper, J.; Airey, S.T.; Patino, E.; Andriot, T.; Ghosh, M.; Pearse, D.D. Temporal and Severity-Dependent Alterations in Plasma Extracellular Vesicle Profiles Following Spinal Cord Injury. Cells 2025, 14, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lai, C.P.; Mardini, O.; Ericsson, M.; Prabhakar, S.; Maguire, C.A.; Chen, J.W.; Tannous, B.A.; Breakefield, X.O. Dynamic Biodistribution of Extracellular Vesicles in Vivo Using a Multimodal Imaging Reporter. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hill, A.F. Extracellular Vesicles and Neurodegenerative Diseases. J. Neurosci. 2019, 39, 9269–9273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. André-Grégoire, G.; Roux, Q.; Gavard, J. Isolating plasma extracellular vesicles from mouse blood using size-exclusion chromatography, density gradient, and ultracentrifugation. STAR Protoc. 2023, 4, 102740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  13. Lucien, F.; Gustafson, D.; Lenassi, M.; Li, B.; Teske, J.J.; Boilard, E.; von Hohenberg, K.C.; Falcón-Perez, J.M.; Gualerzi, A.; Reale, A.; et al. MIBlood-EV: Minimal information to enhance the quality and reproducibility of blood extracellular vesicle research. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2023, 12, 12385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  14. Welsh, J.A.; Goberdhan, D.C.I.; O’Driscoll, L.; Buzas, E.I.; Blenkiron, C.; Bussolati, B.; Cai, H.; Di Vizio, D.; Driedonks, T.A.; Erdbrügger, U.; et al. Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles (MISEV2023): From basic to advanced approaches. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2024, 13, e12404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Holcar, M.; Kandušer, M.; Lenassi, M. Blood Nanoparticles—Influence on Extracellular Vesicle Isolation and Characterization. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 773844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tran, V.; de Oliveira, G.P., Jr.; Chidester, S.; Lu, S.; Pleet, M.L.; Ivanov, A.R.; Tigges, J.; Yang, M.; Jacobson, S.; Gonçalves, M.C.; et al. Choice of blood collection methods influences extracellular vesicles counts and miRNA profiling. J. Extracell. Biol. 2024, 3, e70008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  17. Donovan, J.; Brown, P. Blood Collection. Curr. Protoc. Neurosci. 2005, 33, A.4G.1–A.4G.9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. George, A.J.; O’Malley, C.I.; Bulock, R.E.; Harmsen, B.J.; Brado, G.E.; Turner, P.V.; Williams, W.O. Implementation of an Alternative Training Method for Cardiac Blood Collection in Mice. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. JAALAS 2023, 62, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  19. Chan, Y.K.; Davis, P.F.; Poppitt, S.D.; Sun, X.; Greenhill, N.S.; Krishnamurthi, R.; Przepiorski, A.; McGill, A.-T.; Krissansen, G.W. Influence of tail versus cardiac sampling on blood glucose and lipid profiles in mice. Lab. Anim. 2012, 46, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hu, W.; Sheng, H.; Yang, J.; Chen, C.; Shang, R.; Liu, Z.; Hu, X.; Zhang, X.; He, W.; Huang, C.; et al. Comparison of inferior vena cava puncture under continuous cardiac perfusion with cardiac puncture in blood acquisition of the laboratory mouse. Lab. Anim. 2025, 59, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ahrens Kress, A.P.; Zhang, Y.; Kaiser-Vry, A.R.; Sauer, M.B. A Comparison of Blood Collection Techniques in Mice and their Effects on Welfare. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. JAALAS 2022, 61, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  22. Christensen, S.D.; Mikkelsen, L.F.; Fels, J.J.; Bodvarsdóttir, T.B.; Hansen, A.K. Quality of plasma sampled by different methods for multiple blood sampling in mice. Lab. Anim. 2009, 43, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maggio, D.M.; Singh, A.; Iorgulescu, J.B.; Bleicher, D.H.; Ghosh, M.; Lopez, M.M.; Tuesta, L.M.; Flora, G.; Dietrich, W.D.; Pearse, D.D. Identifying the Long-Term Role of Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase after Contusive Spinal Cord Injury Using a Transgenic Mouse Model. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  24. Gandham, S.; Su, X.; Wood, J.; Nocera, A.L.; Alli, S.C.; Milane, L.; Zimmerman, A.; Amiji, M.; Ivanov, A.R. Technologies and Standardization in Research on Extracellular Vesicles. Trends Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 1066–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bojmar, L.; Kim, H.S.; Tobias, G.C.; Pelissier Vatter, F.A.; Lucotti, S.; Gyan, K.E.; Kenific, C.M.; Wan, Z.; Kim, K.A.; Kim, D.; et al. Extracellular vesicle and particle isolation from human and murine cell lines, tissues, and bodily fluids. STAR Protoc. 2020, 2, 100225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  26. Mammadova-Bach, E.; Gudermann, T.; Braun, A. Platelet Mechanotransduction: Regulatory Cross Talk Between Mechanosensitive Receptors and Calcium Channels. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2023, 43, 1339–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lou, C.; Cai, X. The emerging roles of platelet-derived extracellular vesicles in disease. Ann. Med. 2025, 57, 2499029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dhondt, B.; Pinheiro, C.; Geeurickx, E.; Tulkens, J.; Vergauwen, G.; Van Der Pol, E.; Nieuwland, R.; Decock, A.; Miinalainen, I.; Rappu, P.; et al. Benchmarking blood collection tubes and processing intervals for extracellular vesicle performance metrics. J. Extracell. Vesicles 2023, 12, e12315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  29. Fargeas, C.A.; Florek, M.; Huttner, W.B.; Corbeil, D. Characterization of Prominin-2, a New Member of the Prominin Family of Pentaspan Membrane Glycoproteins. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 8586–8596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bell, T.A.; Luce, B.E.; Hakim, P.; Ananda, V.Y.; Dardari, H.; Nguyen, T.H.; Monshizadeh, A.; Chao, L.H. Prominin 1 and Tweety Homology 1 both induce extracellular vesicle formation. eLife 2024, 13, e100061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, J.; Li, J.; Zheng, Y.; Zhu, C.; Wu, Z.; Wang, T.; Li, Y.; Zhu, J.; Wei, S.; Qian, H.; et al. Lipid metabolism and lipid signaling in extracellular vesicles ontogeny: From biogenesis to functional execution. J. Nanobiotechnology 2025, 23, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Record, M.; Silvente-Poirot, S.; Poirot, M.; Wakelam, M.J.O. Extracellular vesicles: Lipids as key components of their biogenesis and functions. J. Lipid Res. 2018, 59, 1316–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  33. Rome, S.; Tacconi, S. High-fat diets: You are what you eat… your extracellular vesicles too! J. Extracell. Vesicles 2024, 13, 12382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lei, Z.; Krishnamachary, B.; Khan, N.Z.; Ji, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Brunner, K.; Faden, A.I.; Jones, J.W.; Wu, J. Spinal cord injury disrupts plasma extracellular vesicles cargoes leading to neuroinflammation in the brain and neurological dysfunction in aged male mice. Brain Behav. Immun. 2024, 120, 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Park, C.; Lei, Z.; Li, Y.; Ren, B.; He, J.; Huang, H.; Chen, F.; Li, H.; Brunner, K.; Zhu, J. Extracellular vesicles in sepsis plasma mediate neuronal inflammation in the brain through miRNAs and innate immune signaling. J. Neuroinflammation 2024, 21, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Comparative workflow for cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods for murine plasma EV isolation and analysis. (a) Cardiac puncture blood collection methodology, performed as a terminal procedure involving direct needle insertion into the heart for rapid withdrawal of undiluted blood without saline infusion. (b) Perfusate blood collection methodology, performed as a terminal procedure involving vascular perfusion with saline buffer infusion to maximize total fluid recovery from the circulatory system. (c) Standardized EV isolation protocol applied to plasma samples from both collection methods. Whole blood underwent sequential centrifugation at 1000× g for 15 min followed by 1500× g for 15 min to obtain platelet-free plasma. EVs were enriched using SEC with qEVoriginal 70 nm columns to remove soluble protein contaminants and isolate vesicle-rich fractions. Samples were then concentrated using Vivaspin® 2 centrifugal concentrators with 5000 MWCO membranes. (d) Multiplex immunophenotyping of plasma-derived EVs using the MACSPlex assay. Enriched vesicles from both collection methods were incubated with a bead-based panel containing 39 antibodies targeting immune and adhesion molecules. Surface marker detection was performed using a fluorescent tetraspanin cocktail (CD63, CD81, CD9), and samples were analyzed by flow cytometry.
Figure 1. Comparative workflow for cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods for murine plasma EV isolation and analysis. (a) Cardiac puncture blood collection methodology, performed as a terminal procedure involving direct needle insertion into the heart for rapid withdrawal of undiluted blood without saline infusion. (b) Perfusate blood collection methodology, performed as a terminal procedure involving vascular perfusion with saline buffer infusion to maximize total fluid recovery from the circulatory system. (c) Standardized EV isolation protocol applied to plasma samples from both collection methods. Whole blood underwent sequential centrifugation at 1000× g for 15 min followed by 1500× g for 15 min to obtain platelet-free plasma. EVs were enriched using SEC with qEVoriginal 70 nm columns to remove soluble protein contaminants and isolate vesicle-rich fractions. Samples were then concentrated using Vivaspin® 2 centrifugal concentrators with 5000 MWCO membranes. (d) Multiplex immunophenotyping of plasma-derived EVs using the MACSPlex assay. Enriched vesicles from both collection methods were incubated with a bead-based panel containing 39 antibodies targeting immune and adhesion molecules. Surface marker detection was performed using a fluorescent tetraspanin cocktail (CD63, CD81, CD9), and samples were analyzed by flow cytometry.
Mps 09 00040 g001
Figure 2. (a) NTA showing particle concentration (particles/mL) for plasma-enriched EVs from naïve and (b) 50 kdyne SCI groups. (c) Total particle yield per animal for naïve and (d) 50 kdyne SCI groups. A subset of perfusate samples yielded particle concentrations below the NTA detection threshold and were therefore excluded from quantitative comparison. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare collection methods. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 4 (naïve) and n = 3 (50 kdyne SCI) biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate on the flow cytometer; data are presented as mean ± SEM. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ns = not significant.
Figure 2. (a) NTA showing particle concentration (particles/mL) for plasma-enriched EVs from naïve and (b) 50 kdyne SCI groups. (c) Total particle yield per animal for naïve and (d) 50 kdyne SCI groups. A subset of perfusate samples yielded particle concentrations below the NTA detection threshold and were therefore excluded from quantitative comparison. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare collection methods. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 4 (naïve) and n = 3 (50 kdyne SCI) biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate on the flow cytometer; data are presented as mean ± SEM. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ns = not significant.
Mps 09 00040 g002
Figure 3. (a) MACSPlex analysis of tetraspanins (CD81, CD63, CD9) on plasma-derived EVs from naïve (b) and 50 kdyne SCI. (c) Raw event counts across all 39 surface markers for naïve EVs (d) and 50 kdyne SCI EVs. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to assess significance across tetraspanin markers. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 4 (naive) and n = 3 (50 kdyne SCI) biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate; data are presented as mean ± SEM. Significance levels: *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
Figure 3. (a) MACSPlex analysis of tetraspanins (CD81, CD63, CD9) on plasma-derived EVs from naïve (b) and 50 kdyne SCI. (c) Raw event counts across all 39 surface markers for naïve EVs (d) and 50 kdyne SCI EVs. Two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to assess significance across tetraspanin markers. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 4 (naive) and n = 3 (50 kdyne SCI) biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate; data are presented as mean ± SEM. Significance levels: *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.
Mps 09 00040 g003
Figure 4. (a) MACSPlex analysis showing all detected surface markers (normalized to CD9) comparing cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods in naïve mice. (b) Comprehensive heatmap illustrating raw expression values for all 39 markers across both collection methods, shown prior to CD9 normalization. Markers are grouped by functional categories including exosomes, platelets, leukocytes, T cells, endothelium, epithelium, and controls. (c) Volcano plot displaying log fold change versus −log (false discovery rate) for differential marker expression between collection methods, with Prominin-1, CD41, and CD11b highlighted as significantly different markers. (d) Quantitative comparison of Prominin-1 and CD41 expression (normalized to CD9) between cardiac puncture and perfusate blood-derived EVs. Unpaired t-test was used to assess statistical significance. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 4 (naïve) biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate; data are presented as mean ± SEM. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4. (a) MACSPlex analysis showing all detected surface markers (normalized to CD9) comparing cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods in naïve mice. (b) Comprehensive heatmap illustrating raw expression values for all 39 markers across both collection methods, shown prior to CD9 normalization. Markers are grouped by functional categories including exosomes, platelets, leukocytes, T cells, endothelium, epithelium, and controls. (c) Volcano plot displaying log fold change versus −log (false discovery rate) for differential marker expression between collection methods, with Prominin-1, CD41, and CD11b highlighted as significantly different markers. (d) Quantitative comparison of Prominin-1 and CD41 expression (normalized to CD9) between cardiac puncture and perfusate blood-derived EVs. Unpaired t-test was used to assess statistical significance. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 4 (naïve) biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate; data are presented as mean ± SEM. Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Mps 09 00040 g004
Figure 5. (a) MACSPlex analysis showing all detected surface markers (normalized to CD9) comparing cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods in 50 kdyne SCI mice. (b) Comprehensive heatmap illustrating raw expression values for all 39 markers across both collection methods, shown prior to CD9 normalization. Markers are grouped by functional categories including exosomes, platelets, leukocytes, T cells, endothelium, epithelium, and controls. (c) Volcano plot displaying log fold change versus −log (false discovery rate) for differential marker expression between collection methods, with CD2 highlighted as a significantly different marker. Unpaired t-test was used to assess statistical significance. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 3 biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate; data are presented as mean ± SEM.
Figure 5. (a) MACSPlex analysis showing all detected surface markers (normalized to CD9) comparing cardiac puncture and perfusate blood collection methods in 50 kdyne SCI mice. (b) Comprehensive heatmap illustrating raw expression values for all 39 markers across both collection methods, shown prior to CD9 normalization. Markers are grouped by functional categories including exosomes, platelets, leukocytes, T cells, endothelium, epithelium, and controls. (c) Volcano plot displaying log fold change versus −log (false discovery rate) for differential marker expression between collection methods, with CD2 highlighted as a significantly different marker. Unpaired t-test was used to assess statistical significance. Cardiac puncture groups comprise n = 4 biological replicates; perfusate groups comprise n = 3 biological replicates. Each sample was acquired in technical duplicate; data are presented as mean ± SEM.
Mps 09 00040 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cooper, J.; Airey, S.T.; Patino, E.; Andriot, T.; Ghosh, M.; Pearse, D.D. Comparative Analysis of Cardiac Puncture and Perfusate Blood Collection for Murine Extracellular Vesicle Isolation. Methods Protoc. 2026, 9, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps9020040

AMA Style

Cooper J, Airey ST, Patino E, Andriot T, Ghosh M, Pearse DD. Comparative Analysis of Cardiac Puncture and Perfusate Blood Collection for Murine Extracellular Vesicle Isolation. Methods and Protocols. 2026; 9(2):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps9020040

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cooper, Jamie, Scott Tait Airey, Eric Patino, Theo Andriot, Mousumi Ghosh, and Damien D. Pearse. 2026. "Comparative Analysis of Cardiac Puncture and Perfusate Blood Collection for Murine Extracellular Vesicle Isolation" Methods and Protocols 9, no. 2: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps9020040

APA Style

Cooper, J., Airey, S. T., Patino, E., Andriot, T., Ghosh, M., & Pearse, D. D. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Cardiac Puncture and Perfusate Blood Collection for Murine Extracellular Vesicle Isolation. Methods and Protocols, 9(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps9020040

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop