Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- CHO cells (1)
- clastogenicity (1)
- ectosomes (1)
- exosomes (1)
- extracellular vesicles (1)
- guidelines (1)
- in vitro (1)
- microparticles (1)
- microvesicles (1)
- minimal information requirements (1)
Institute
- Extern (1)
- Georg-Speyer-Haus (1)
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.
Forty-two chemicals were tested for their ability to induce cytogenetic change in Chinese hamster ovary cells using assays for chromosome aberrations (ABS) and sister chromatid exchanges (SCE). These chemicals were included in the National Toxicology Program's evaluation of the ability of four in vitro short-term genetic toxicity assays to distinguish between rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens. The conclusions of this comparison are presented in Zeiger et al. [Zeiger E, Haseman JK, Shelby MD, Margolin BH, Tennant RW (1990): [Environ Molec Mutagen 16(Suppl 18): 1-14]. The in vitro cytogenetic testing was conducted at four laboratories, each using a standard protocol to evaluate coded chemicals with and without exogenous metabolic activation. Most chemicals were tested in a single laboratory; however, two chemicals, tribromomethane and p-chloroaniline, were tested at two laboratories as part of an interlaboratory comparison. Four chemicals (CI. basic red 9 HCI, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, oxytetracycline HCI, and rotenone) were tested for SCE in one laboratory and in a different laboratory for ABS. Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate was tested at one laboratory and the chloride form was tested at a different laboratory. Twenty-five of the 42 chemicals tested induced SCE. Sixteen of these also induced ABS; all chemicals that induced ABS also induced SCE. There was approximately 79"10 reproducibility of results in repeat tests, thus, we conclude that this protocol is effective and reproducible in detecting ABS and SCE.