Molecular Determinants Involved in the Docking and Uptake of Tumor-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: Implications in Cancer.

Extracellular vesicles produced by tumor cells (TEVs) influence all stages of cancer development and spread, including tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and metastasis. TEVs can trigger profound phenotypic and functional changes in target cells through three main general mechanisms: (i) docking of TEVs on target cells and triggering of intra-cellular signaling; (ii) fusion of TEVs and target cell membranes with release of TEVs molecular cargo in the cytoplasm of recipient cell; and (iii) uptake of TEVs by recipient cells. Though the overall tumor-promoting effects of TEVs as well as the general mechanisms involved in TEVs interactions with, and uptake by, recipient cells are relatively well established, current knowledge about the molecular determinants that mediate the docking and uptake of tumor-derived EVs by specific target cells is still rather deficient. These molecular determinants dictate the cell and organ tropism of TEVs and ultimately control the specificity of TEVs-promoted metastases. Here, we will review current knowledge on selected specific molecules that mediate the tropism of TEVs towards specific target cells and organs, including the integrins, ICAM-1 Inter-Cellular Adhesion Molecule), ALCAM (Activated Leukocyte Cell Adhesion Molecule), CD44, the metalloproteinases ADAM17 (A Disintegrin And Metalloproteinase member 17) and ADAM10 (A Disintegrin And Metalloproteinase member 10), and the tetraspanin CD9.

Optimization of extracellular vesicle isolation and their separation from lipoproteins by size exclusion chromatography.

Interest in the use of extracellular vesicles (EVs) as biomarkers of disease is rapidly growing. However, one main unsolved issue in the EV field is finding a technique able to eliminate non-EV contaminants present in biofluid samples in a one-step isolation protocol. Due to the expansion and value of size exclusion chromatography (SEC) as one of the best EV isolation methods, we have tested several agarose resins with different agarose percentages, bead sizes and crosslinking features to optimize EV isolation. For this optimization of SEC, we first employed conditioned media from a melanoma cell culture, a simpler sample in comparison to biological fluids, but which also contains abundant contaminants such as soluble protein and lipoproteins (LPPs). The distinct agaroses and the combinations of resins with different agarose percentages in the same column were tested. Soluble protein, EVs and LPPs levels from the different eluted fractions were quantitated by immunodetection or absorbance measurements. Samples were also analysed by NTA and TEM to verify the yield and the LPP contamination. Different percentages of agarose resins (2%, 4% and 6%) yielded samples with increasing LPP contamination respectively, which was not improved in the columns that combined them. Crosslinking of the agarose did not affect EV isolation yield nor the LPP contamination. In contrast, reducing the bead size greatly improved EV purity. We thus selected 4% Rapid Run Fine agarose beads as the resin that more efficiently isolated EVs with almost no contamination of other particles. Using blood plasma samples, this resin also demonstrated an improved capacity in the isolation of EVs from LPPs in comparison to the agaroses most commonly used in the field and differential ultracentrifugation.

Standardising the preanalytical reporting of biospecimens to improve reproducibility in extracellular vesicle research - A GEIVEX study.

The standardization of clinical studies using extracellular vesicles (EVs) has mainly focused on the procedures employed for their isolation and characterization; however, preanalytical aspects of sample collection, handling and storage also significantly impact the reproducibility of results. We conducted an online survey based on SPREC (Standard PREanalytical Code) among members of GEIVEX (Grupo Español de Investigación en Vesiculas Extracelulares) to explore how different laboratories handled fluid biospecimens destined for EV analyses. We received 70 surveys from forty-three different laboratories: 44% focused on plasma, 9% on serum and 16% on urine. The survey indicated that variability in preanalytical approaches reaches 94%. Moreover, in some cases, researchers had no access to all relevant preanalytical details of samples, with some sample aspects with potential impact on EV isolation/characterisation not coded within the current version of SPREC. Our study highlights the importance of working with common standard operating procedures (SOP) to control preanalytical conditions. The application of SPREC represents a suitable approach to codify and register preanalytical conditions. Integrating SPREC into the SOPs of laboratories/biobanks will provide a valuable source of information and constitute an advance for EV research by improving reproducibility and credibility.