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.

Concentration of extracellular vesicles (EVs) from biological fluids in a scalable and reproducible manner represents a major challenge. This study reports the use of tangential flow filtration (TFF) for the highly efficient isolation of EVs from large volumes of samples. When compared to ultracentrifugation (UC), which is the most widely used method to concentrate EVs, TFF is a more efficient, scalable, and gentler method. Comparative assessment of TFF and UC of conditioned cell culture media revealed that the former concentrates EVs of comparable physicochemical characteristics, but with higher yield, less single macromolecules and aggregates (<15 nm in size), and improved batch-to-batch consistency in half the processing time (1 h). The TFF protocol was then successfully implemented on fluids derived from patient lipoaspirate. EVs from adipose tissue are of high clinical relevance, as they are expected to mirror the regenerative properties of the parent cells.

Nanomedicine involves the use of nanoparticles for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. During the past two decades, a growing number of nanomedicines have received regulatory approval and many more show promise for future clinical translation. In this context, it is important to evaluate the safety of nanoparticles in order to achieve biocompatibility and desired activity. However, it is unwarranted to make generalized statements regarding the safety of nanoparticles, since the field of nanomedicine comprises a multitude of different manufactured nanoparticles made from various materials. Indeed, several nanotherapeutics that are currently approved, such as Doxil and Abraxane, exhibit fewer side effects than their small molecule counterparts, while other nanoparticles (e.g. metallic and carbon-based particles) tend to display toxicity. However, the hazardous nature of certain nanomedicines could be exploited for the ablation of diseased tissue, if selective targeting can be achieved. This review discusses the mechanisms for molecular, cellular, organ, and immune system toxicity, which can be observed with a subset of nanoparticles. Strategies for improving the safety of nanoparticles by surface modification and pretreatment with immunomodulators are also discussed. Additionally, important considerations for nanoparticle safety assessment are reviewed. In regards to clinical application, stricter regulations for the approval of nanomedicines might not be required. Rather, safety evaluation assays should be adjusted to be more appropriate for engineered nanoparticles.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are promising next‐generation therapeutics and drug delivery systems due to demonstrated safety and efficacy in preclinical models and early‐stage clinical trials. There is an urgent need to address the immunogenicity of EVs (beyond the apparent lack of immunotoxicity) to advance clinical development. To date, few studies have assessed unintended immunological recognition of EVs. An in‐depth understanding of EV‐induced immunogenicity and clearance is necessary to develop effective therapeutic strategies, including approaches to mitigate immunological recognition when undesired. This article summarizes various factors involved in the potential immunogenicity of EVs and strategies to reduce immunological recognition for improved therapeutic benefit.