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) are small vesicles released by donor cells that can be taken up by recipient cells. Despite their discovery decades ago, it has only recently become apparent that EVs play an important role in cell‐to‐cell communication. EVs can carry a range of nucleic acids and proteins which can have a significant impact on the phenotype of the recipient. For this phenotypic effect to occur, EVs need to fuse with target cell membranes, either directly with the plasma membrane or with the endosomal membrane after endocytic uptake. EVs are of therapeutic interest because they are deregulated in diseases such as cancer and they could be harnessed to deliver drugs to target cells. It is therefore important to understand the molecular mechanisms by which EVs are taken up into cells. This comprehensive review summarizes current knowledge of EV uptake mechanisms. Cells appear to take up EVs by a variety of endocytic pathways, including clathrin‐dependent endocytosis, and clathrin‐independent pathways such as caveolin‐mediated uptake, macropinocytosis, phagocytosis, and lipid raft–mediated internalization. Indeed, it seems likely that a heterogeneous population of EVs may gain entry into a cell via more than one route. The uptake mechanism used by a given EV may depend on proteins and glycoproteins found on the surface of both the vesicle and the target cell. Further research is needed to understand the precise rules that underpin EV entry into cells.

Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation.

Blood is the most commonly used body fluid for extracellular vesicle (EV) research. The composition of a blood sample and its derivatives (i.e., plasma and serum) are not only donor‐dependent but also influenced by collection and preparation protocols. Since there are hundreds of pre‐analytical protocols and over forty variables, the development of standard operating procedures for EV research is very challenging. To improve the reproducibility of blood EV research, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) Blood EV Task Force proposes standardized reporting of (i) the applied blood collection and preparation protocol and (ii) the quality of the prepared plasma and serum samples. Gathering detailed information will provide insight into the performance of the protocols and more effectively identify potential confounders in the prepared plasma and serum samples. To collect this information, the ISEV Blood EV Task Force created the Minimal Information for Blood EV research (MIBlood‐EV), a tool to record and report information about pre‐analytical protocols used for plasma and serum preparation as well as assays used to assess the quality of these preparations. This tool does not require modifications of established local pre‐analytical protocols and can be easily implemented to enhance existing databases thereby enabling evidence‐based optimization of pre‐analytical protocols through meta‐analysis. Taken together, insight into the quality of prepared plasma and serum samples will (i) improve the quality of biobanks for EV research, (ii) guide the exchange of plasma and serum samples between biobanks and laboratories, (iii) facilitate inter‐laboratory comparative EV studies, and (iv) improve the peer review process.

Communication between irradiated and un-irradiated (bystander) cells can cause damage in cells that are not directly targeted by ionizing radiation, a process known as the bystander effect. Bystander effects can also lead to chromosomal/genomic instability within the progeny of bystander cells, similar to the progeny of directly irradiated cells. The factors that mediate this cellular communication can be transferred between cells via gap junctions or released into the extracellular media following irradiation, but their nature has not been fully characterized. In this study we tested the hypothesis that the bystander effect mediator contains an RNA molecule that may be carried by exosomes. MCF7 cells were irradiated with 2 Gy of X rays and the extracellular media was harvested. RNase treatment abrogated the ability of the media to induce early and late chromosomal damage in bystander cells. Furthermore, treatment of bystander cells with exosomes isolated from this media increased the levels of genomic damage. These results suggest that the bystander effect, and genomic instability, are at least in part mediated by exosomes and implicate a role for RNA.