Comparative Proteomics of Seminal Exosomes Reveals Size-Exclusion Chromatography Outperforms Ultracentrifugation

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Extracellular vesicles, particularly exosomes, play a crucial role in cell–cell communication and as carriers of biomarkers. However, their use in clinical settings is limited due to a lack of standardized isolation and characterization. Ultracentrifugation (UC) is considered a gold standard for exosome isolation but presents several limitations. Size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) has recently gained attention as a superior method, which offers better yield, purity, and protection of exosome physical properties. This study focused on optimizing the SEC method for isolation of exosomes from seminal plasma and comparing yield, quality, and proteome profiles with those obtained by UC. Methods: In this SEC method, seminal plasma (0.5 mL) was loaded onto a SEC column and collected in 13 fractions of 0.4 mL each. The physical and molecular characterization of exosomes was carried out using a ZetaView analyzer and Western blot, respectively. Further, SEC-isolated exosomes were used for proteomic profiling and functional bioinformatic analysis. Results: The second and third fractions had the highest concentration of exosomes with uniform size and strong expression of exosome markers. Also, comparative proteomic analysis identified 3315 proteins in SEC-isolated exosomes and 931 in UC-isolated exosomes, with 709 proteins in common. SEC-isolated exosomes showed greater overlap with Vesiclepedia’s and ExoCarta’s top 100 lists than UC-isolated exosomes (Vesiclepedia: 91 vs. 77 proteins, ExoCarta: 94 vs. 79). Proteins from SEC- and UC-isolated exosomes showed similar enrichment profiles across all three gene ontology categories. Conclusions: Overall, this optimized SEC protocol is a reliable alternative method to isolate seminal exosomes with high purity, supporting its potential applications in clinical and basic research.
Funding Information
  • Joseph Hume Urology Fund, Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, and NIH R01NS136041 (1039/OSHEC-ACAD-SANC-0001-2025)

This publication has 59 references indexed in Scilit: