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 small, heterogeneous and difficult to measure. Flow cytometry (FC) is a key technology for the measurement of individual particles, but its application to the analysis of EVs and other submicron particles has presented many challenges and has produced a number of controversial results, in part due to limitations of instrument detection, lack of robust methods and ambiguities in how data should be interpreted. These complications are exacerbated by the field's lack of a robust reporting framework, and many EV‐FC manuscripts include incomplete descriptions of methods and results, contain artefacts stemming from an insufficient instrument sensitivity and inappropriate experimental design and lack appropriate calibration and standardization. To address these issues, a working group (WG) of EV‐FC researchers from ISEV, ISAC and ISTH, worked together as an EV‐FC WG and developed a consensus framework for the minimum information that should be provided regarding EV‐FC. This framework incorporates the existing Minimum Information for Studies of EVs (MISEV) guidelines and Minimum Information about a FC experiment (MIFlowCyt) standard in an EV‐FC‐specific reporting framework (MIFlowCyt‐EV) that supports reporting of critical information related to sample staining, EV detection and measurement and experimental design in manuscripts that report EV‐FC data. MIFlowCyt‐EV provides a structure for sharing EV‐FC results, but it does not prescribe specific protocols, as there will continue to be rapid evolution of instruments and methods for the foreseeable future. MIFlowCyt‐EV accommodates this evolution, while providing information needed to evaluate and compare different approaches. Because MIFlowCyt‐EV will ensure consistency in the manner of reporting of EV‐FC studies, over time we expect that adoption of MIFlowCyt‐EV as a standard for reporting EV‐ FC studies will improve the ability to quantitatively compare results from different laboratories and to support the development of new instruments and assays for improved measurement of EVs.

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.