Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 6;9(10):e20742. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20742

Table 1.

Exosome-loading methods and their corresponding efficiencies.

Loading method Exosome source Delivery cargo Efficiency Reference
Incubation Prostate cancer cells Paclitaxel 10.03 % Saari et al., 2015 [7]
Incubation (for hydrophobic porphyrin)
Electroporation (for hydrophilic porphyrin)
  • a.

    Breast cancer cells

  • b.

    Human umbilical vein endothelial cells

  • c.

    Bone-marrow derived human mesenchymal cells

  • d.

    Human embryonic stem cells

 Porphyrin Using hydrophobic porphyrin: a. 28.1 (±9.4 %)
  • b.

    31.9 (±14.5 %)

  • c.

    31.5 (±8.1 %)

  • d.

    35.2 (±8.4 %)

Using hydrophilic porphyrin: a. 2.9 (±0.5 %)
  • b.

    0.6 (±0.2 %)

  • c.

    1.6 (±0.7 %)

  • d.

    0.8 (±0.4 %)

 Furhmann et al., 2015 [8]
Electroporation Ovarian cancer tumors of SKOV3 xenograft mice CRISPR/Cas9 ∼1.75 % Kim et al., 2017 [9]
Co-incubation (Mixing/Incubation) Bovine milk Paclitaxel 7.9 (±1 %) Agrawal et al., 2017 [10]
  • a.

    Electroporation

  • b.

    Sonication

  • c.

    Co-incubation

 Raw 264.7 macrophages (mice) Paclitaxel
  • a.

    5.3 %

  • b.

    28.29 %

  • c.

    1.44 %

 Kim et al., 2016 [11]
Sonication Pancreatic cancer cells Gemcitabine 11.68 (±3.68 %) Li et al., 2020 [12]
Freeze and thaw cycles
Incubation		 Raw 264.7 macrophages (mouse) Catalase 14.7 (±1.1 %)
4.9 (±0.5 %)		 Haney et al., 2015
Ultracentrifugation Raw 264.7 macrophages (mouse) Brain derived neurotrophic factor ∼20 % Yuan et al., 2017 [13]