BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Editorial
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Stem Cells. Aug 26, 2026; 18(8): 114716
Published online Aug 26, 2026. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.114716
Table 1 Comparative analysis of major extracellular vesicles isolation methods for clinical translation
Method
Recovery yield
Purity
Throughput/processable volume
Time/cost
Impact on bioactivity
Preservation of subpopulations
UCLow (+)Moderate (co-isolates protein aggregates & non-exosomal vesicles)Low/difficult to scale (+)Time: High; cost: Low (-)Potential vesicle damage & aggregation due to high g-forces (-)Poor (differential sedimentation may bias populations) (-)
SECModerate (++)High (effective removal of soluble proteins & contaminants) (++)Moderate/challenging for large volumes (++)Time: Moderate; cost: Moderate (++)Gentle, maintains structural integrity & function (++)Good (separation by hydrodynamic size, can preserve heterogeneity) (++)
TFFHigh (+++)Moderate (can require combination with SEC for high purity) (++)High/highly scalable (handles large volumes) (+++)Time: Low; cost: Moderate (+++)Gentle, suitable for labile biologics (+++)Good (size-based, less shear damage than UC) (++)
AECHigh (+++)High (binds negatively charged vesicles, effective impurity removal) (+++)High/scalable (+++)Time: Low; cost: Moderate (+++)Depends on elution conditions (salt/pH may affect activity) (+)Moderate (may select for specific surface charge populations) (+)
Microfluidic technologyVariable (device-dependent) (+) to (++)High (precise manipulation & sorting) (+++)Low/currently limited by chip design (+)Time: Rapid processing; cost: High per-device (research stage) (+)Generally gentle (+++)Promising for specific subpopulation isolation (precise sorting) (+++)


Write to the Help Desk