The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell‐released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV‐associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

Despite an enormous interest in the role of extracellular vesicles, including exosomes, in cancer and their use as biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, drug response and recurrence, there is no consensus on dependable isolation protocols. We provide a comparative evaluation of 4 exosome isolation protocols for their usability, yield and purity, and their impact on downstream omics approaches for biomarker discovery. OptiPrep density gradient centrifugation outperforms ultracentrifugation and ExoQuick and Total Exosome Isolation precipitation in terms of purity, as illustrated by the highest number of CD63‐positive nanovesicles, the highest enrichment in exosomal marker proteins and a lack of contaminating proteins such as extracellular Argonaute‐2 complexes. The purest exosome fractions reveal a unique mRNA profile enriched for translation, ribosome, mitochondrion and nuclear lumen function. Our results demonstrate that implementation of high purification techniques is a prerequisite to obtain reliable omics data and identify exosome‐specific functions and biomarkers.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are membranous vesicles that are released by both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells into the extracellular microenvironment. EVs can be categorised as exosomes, ectosomes or shedding microvesicles and apoptotic bodies based on the mode of biogenesis. EVs contain biologically active cargo of nucleic acids, proteins, lipids and metabolites that can be altered based on the precise state of the cell. Vesiclepedia (http://www.microvesicles.org) is a web-based compendium of RNA, proteins, lipids and metabolites that are identified in EVs from both published and unpublished studies. Currently, Vesiclepedia contains data obtained from 1254 EV studies, 38 146 RNA entries, 349 988 protein entries and 639 lipid/metabolite entries. Vesiclepedia is publicly available and allows users to query and download EV cargo based on different search criteria. The mode of EV isolation and characterization, the biophysical and molecular properties and EV-METRIC are listed in the database aiding biomedical scientists in assessing the quality of the EV preparation and the corresponding data obtained. In addition, FunRich-based Vesiclepedia plugin is incorporated aiding users in data analysis.

Identification and validation of extracellular vesicle (EV)-associated biomarkers requires robust isolation and characterization protocols. We assessed the impact of some commonly implemented pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical variables in EV research. Centrifugal filters with different membrane types and pore sizes are used to reduce large volume biofluids prior to EV isolation or to concentrate EVs. We compared five commonly reported filters for their efficiency when using plasma, urine and EV-spiked PBS. Regenerated cellulose membranes with pore size of 10 kDa recovered EVs the most efficient. Less than 40% recovery was achieved with other filters. Next, we analyzed the effect of the type of protein assays to measure EV protein in colorimetric and fluorometric kits. The fluorometric assay Qubit measured low concentration EV and BSA samples the most accurately with the lowest variation among technical and biological replicates. Lastly, we quantified Optiprep remnants in EV samples from density gradient ultracentrifugation and demonstrate that size-exclusion chromatography efficiently removes Optiprep from EVs. In conclusion, choice of centrifugal filters and protein assays confound EV analysis and should be carefully considered to increase efficiency towards biomarker discovery. SEC-based removal of Optiprep remnants from EVs can be considered for downstream applications.