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) have become an attractive field among the scientific community. Yet, a major challenge is to define a consensus method for EVs isolation. Ultracentrifugation has been the most widely used methodology but rapid methods, including Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC) and/or precipitating agents such as Polyethylene glycol (PEG) or PRotein Organic Solvent PRecipitation (PROSPR) have emerged. To evaluate the impact of these different methods on the resulting EV preparations, plasma EVs were isolated using SEC, PEG and PROSPR and their total protein content, NTA and Cryo-electron microscopy profiles and EV-markers were compared. Also, their effect on recipient cells was tested. Low protein content and Cryo-EM analysis showed that SEC removed most of the overabundant soluble plasma proteins, which were not removed using PEG and partially by PROSPR. Moreover, only SEC allowed the detection of the EV-markers CD9, CD63 and CD81, LGALS3BP and CD5L, suggesting a putative interference of the precipitating agents in the structure/composition of the EVs. Furthermore, PEG and PROSPR-based EV isolation resulted in reduced cell viability in vitro. These results stress that appropriate EV-isolation method should be considered depending on the forthcoming application of the purified EVs.

Background: Because of the increasing life expectancy in our society, aging-related neurodegenerative disorders are one of the main issues in global health. Most of these diseases are characterized by the deposition of misfolded proteins and a progressive cognitive decline. Among these diseases, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are the most common types of degenerative dementia. Although both show specific features, an important neuropathological and clinical overlap between them hampers their correct diagnosis. In this work, we identified molecular biomarkers aiming to improve the misdiagnosis between both diseases.Methods: Plasma extracellular vesicles (EVs) -from DLB, AD and healthy controls- were isolated using size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) and characterized by flow cytometry, Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis (NTA) and cryo-electron microscopy. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) and related bibliographic search was performed and a selected group of EV-associated microRNAs (miRNAs) was analysed by qPCR.Results: Results uncovered two miRNAs (hsa-miR-451a and hsa-miR-21-5p) significantly down-regulated in AD samples respect to DLB patients, and a set of four miRNAs (hsa-miR-23a-3p, hsa-miR-126-3p, hsa-let-7i-5p, and hsa-miR-151a-3p) significantly decreased in AD respect to controls. The two miRNAs showing decreased expression in AD in comparison to DLB provided area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.9 in ROC curve analysis, thus suggesting their possible use as biomarkers to discriminate between both diseases. Target gene analysis of these miRNAs using prediction online tools showed accumulation of phosphorylation enzymes, presence of proteasome-related proteins and genes involved in cell death among others.Conclusion: Our data suggest that plasma-EV associated miRNAs may reflect a differential profile for a given dementia-related disorder which, once validated in larger cohorts of patients, could help to improve the differential diagnosis of DLB versus AD.

Most cells physiologically release vesicles as way of intercellular communication. The so-called Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) include exosomes, ectosomes and apoptotic bodies, which basically differ in their composition and subcellular origin. Specifically, EVs found in urine reflect the state of the urinary system, from podocytes to renal tubular cells, thus making them an excellent source of samples for the study of kidney physiology and pathology. Several groups have focused on defining biomarkers of kidney-related disorders, from graft rejection to metabolic syndromes. So far, the lack of a standard protocol for EVs isolation precludes the possibility of a proper comparison among the different biomarkers proposed in the literature, stressing the need for validation of these biomarkers not only in larger cohorts of patients but also considering the different methods for EVs isolation. In this review, we aim to gather the current knowledge about EVs-related biomarkers in kidney diseases, with a special emphasis in the methods used to date for EVs enrichment, and discussing the need for more specific protocols of EV isolation in clinical practice.

Most experimental approaches commonly employed for the characterization and quantitation of EVs are time consuming, require of specialized instrumentation and often are rather inaccurate. To circumvent the caveats imposed by EV small size, we used general and specific membrane markers in bead assisted flow cytometry, to provide a semi-quantitative measure of EV content in a given sample. EVs were isolated from in vitro cultured cells-conditioned medium and biological fluids by size exclusion chromatography and coupled to latex beads to allow their detection by standard flow cytometers. Our analyses demonstrate a linear correlation between EV concentration and Mean Fluorescence Intensity values in samples cleared of protein contaminants. Comparison with one of the most widespread method such as NTA, suggests a similar linear range and reliable accuracy to detect saturation. However, although detection of the different biomarkers is feasible when tested on ultracentrifugation-enriched samples, protein contamination impairs quantitation of this type of samples by bead-based flow cytometry. Thus, we provide evidence that bead-assisted flow cytometry method is an accurate and reliable method for the semiquantitative bulk analysis of EVs, which could be easily implemented in most laboratories.

This unit describes how to isolate extracellular vesicles (EVs) from different biological fluids using size‐exclusion chromatography (SEC) and how to prepare your starting sample and the EV product for downstream applications. EVs are membrane nanovesicles with specific content that reflects the phenotype and functions of the cell of origin, including protected proteins, lipids, metabolites, and nucleic acids. EVs are thus an excellent resource for noninvasive biomarker discovery in a number of pathological situations and are a promising nanotherapeutic tool to overcome the disadvantages associated with cellular therapy. However, there are still no standardized methods to isolate pure EV preparations, as many approaches do not guarantee proper EV purification, free of contaminating non‐EV molecules. Currently, SEC is one of the most promising approaches to purify EVs from any biological fluid, as it avoids co‐isolation of contaminants and is user friendly and scalable. © 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.