View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article

Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
DOI: 10.1039/D1NA90120F (Correction) Nanoscale Adv., 2022, 4, 619-619

Correction: Addressing challenges in the removal of unbound dye from passively labelled extracellular vesicles

Kaisa Rautaniemi a, Jacopo Zini b, Emilia Löfman a, Heikki Saari bc, Iida Haapalehto a, Johanna Laukka a, Sami Vesamäki a, Alexander Efimov a, Marjo Yliperttula b, Timo Laaksonen ab, Elina Vuorimaa-Laukkanen a and Ekaterina S. Lisitsyna *a
aChemistry and Advanced Materials, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 8, 33720 Tampere, Finland. E-mail: ekaterina.lisitsyna@tuni.fi
bDrug Research Program, Division of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Helsinki, Viikinkaari 5, 00790 Helsinki, Finland
cFinnish Red Cross Blood Services, Kivihaantie 7, 00310 Helsinki, Finland

Received 15th December 2021 , Accepted 15th December 2021

First published on 23rd December 2021

Abstract

Correction for ‘Addressing challenges in the removal of unbound dye from passively labelled extracellular vesicles’ by Kaisa Rautaniemi et al., Nanoscale Adv., 2022, DOI: 10.1039/d1na00755f.

The authors regret that an incorrect version of Table 3 was included in the original article. The correct version is given here:
Table 3 EV recoveries REV, dye recoveries in the EV fractions Rdye, and relative purification efficiencies Erp for the labelled and purified EVs. The removal of unbound dye was studied with ultracentrifugation (UC), ultracentrifugation with density gradient without ultrafiltration (UCG), ultrafiltration (UF), size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), and anion exchange chromatography (AEC). The individual values for each replicate are presented in ESI Table S2
Dye Method 110k EVs 20k EVs
R EV (%) R dye (%) E rp , R EV (%) R dye (%) E rp ,
a † – acceptably high; ‡ – unacceptably low; all other values are acceptable with caution. b E rp > 1 indicates successful separation of the labelled EVs from the unbound dye: the greater Erp, the better separation; conversely, Erp < 1 indicates unsuccessful removal of the dye.
DHPE-OG UCG 43.0 ± 2.8† 44.6 ± 4.2 1.0 52.9 ± 7.5† 39.6 ± 3.3 1.3
SEC 12.2 ± 1.6† 8.7 ± 1.4 1.4 8.2 ± 0.9 9.3 ± 5.0 0.9
Ptx-OG UCG 10.3 ± 0.4† 67.8 ± 11.5 0.2‡ 6.5 ± 3.3 41.3 ± 38.4 0.2‡
SEC 3.8 ± 1.6 2.9 ± 1.3 1.3 3.7 ± 0.9 1.3 ± 0.3 2.8†
BP UC 7.6 ± 4.8 16.6 ± 1.3 0.5‡ <1 ‡ 7.0 ± 0.8 —
UF 1.2 ± 0.7‡ 1.8 ± 0.9 0.7‡ 2.3 ± 1.0‡ 4.8 ± 3.8 0.5‡
UCG 78.6 ± 10.3† 6.2 ± 0.9 12.7† 54.0 ± 6.0† 15.5 ± 4.8 3.5†
BPC12 UC 12.5 ± 6.8† 35.5 ± 37.6 0.4‡ 5.9 ± 6.2 17.2 ± 15.3 0.3‡
UF 3.9 ± 2.8 7.9 ± 3.4 0.5‡ 8.4 ± 11.2 9,5 ± 15,4 0.9‡
DiO UCG n.d. n.d. — n.d. n.d —
SEC 1.1 ± 0.2‡ n.d. — <1‡ n.d —
AEC 10.1 ± 12.3† 2.2 ± 2.0 4.6† 6.4 ± 0.3 1.8 ± 0.3 3.5†

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2022