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.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), through their complex cargo, can reflect the state of their cell of origin and change the functions and phenotypes of other cells. These features indicate strong biomarker and therapeutic potential and have generated broad interest, as evidenced by the steady year‐on‐year increase in the numbers of scientific publications about EVs. Important advances have been made in EV metrology and in understanding and applying EV biology. However, hurdles remain to realising the potential of EVs in domains ranging from basic biology to clinical applications due to challenges in EV nomenclature, separation from non‐vesicular extracellular particles, characterisation and functional studies. To address the challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving field, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) updates its ‘Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles’, which was first published in 2014 and then in 2018 as MISEV2014 and MISEV2018, respectively. The goal of the current document, MISEV2023, is to provide researchers with an updated snapshot of available approaches and their advantages and limitations for production, separation and characterisation of EVs from multiple sources, including cell culture, body fluids and solid tissues. In addition to presenting the latest state of the art in basic principles of EV research, this document also covers advanced techniques and approaches that are currently expanding the boundaries of the field. MISEV2023 also includes new sections on EV release and uptake and a brief discussion of in vivo approaches to study EVs. Compiling feedback from ISEV expert task forces and more than 1000 researchers, this document conveys the current state of EV research to facilitate robust scientific discoveries and move the field forward even more rapidly.

Introduction: In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the number of studies aiming to understand the biology of exosomes, as well as other extracellular vesicles. However, classification of membrane vesicles and the appropriate protocols for their isolation are still under intense discussion and investigation. When isolating vesicles, it is crucial to use systems that are able to separate them, to avoid cross‐contamination.Method: EVs released from three different kinds of cell lines: HMC‐1, TF‐1 and BV‐2 were isolated using two centrifugation‐based protocols. In protocol 1, apoptotic bodies were collected at 2,000×g, followed by filtering the supernatant through 0.8 µm pores and pelleting of microvesicles at 12,200×g. In protocol 2, apoptotic bodies and microvesicles were collected together at 16,500×g, followed by filtering of the supernatant through 0.2 µm pores and pelleting of exosomes at 120,000×g. Extracellular vesicles were analyzed by transmission electron microscopy, flow cytometry and the RNA profiles were investigated using a Bioanalyzer^®.Results: RNA profiles showed that ribosomal RNA was primary detectable in apoptotic bodies and smaller RNAs without prominent ribosomal RNA peaks in exosomes. In contrast, microvesicles contained little or no RNA except for microvesicles collected from TF‐1 cell cultures. The different vesicle pellets showed highly different distribution of size, shape and electron density with typical apoptotic body, microvesicle and exosome characteristics when analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. Flow cytometry revealed the presence of CD63 and CD81 in all vesicles investigated, as well as CD9 except in the TF‐1‐derived vesicles, as these cells do not express CD9.Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that centrifugation‐based protocols are simple and fast systems to distinguish subpopulations of extracellular vesicles. Different vesicles show different RNA profiles and morphological characteristics, but they are indistinguishable using CD63‐coated beads for flow cytometry analysis.

The isolation of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from blood is of great importance to understand the biological role of circulating EVs and to develop EVs as biomarkers of disease. Due to the concurrent presence of lipoprotein particles, however, blood is one of the most difficult body fluids to isolate EVs from. The aim of this study was to develop a robust method to isolate and characterise EVs from blood with minimal contamination by plasma proteins and lipoprotein particles. Plasma and serum were collected from healthy subjects, and EVs were isolated by size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), with most particles being present in fractions 8–12, while the bulk of the plasma proteins was present in fractions 11–28. Vesicle markers peaked in fractions 7–11; however, the same fractions also contained lipoprotein particles. The purity of EVs was improved by combining a density cushion with SEC to further separate lipoprotein particles from the vesicles, which reduced the contamination of lipoprotein particles by 100-fold. Using this novel isolation procedure, a total of 1187 proteins were identified in plasma EVs by mass spectrometry, of which several proteins are known as EV-associated proteins but have hitherto not been identified in the previous proteomic studies of plasma EVs. This study shows that SEC alone is unable to completely separate plasma EVs from lipoprotein particles. However, combining SEC with a density cushion significantly improved the separation of EVs from lipoproteins and allowed for a detailed analysis of the proteome of plasma EVs, thus making blood a viable source for EV biomarker discovery.