Abstract:Journal of Extracellular VesiclesVolume 6, Issue 1 1396823 Editorial of the ISEV boardOpen Access Updating the MISEV minimal requirements for extracellular vesicle studies: building bridges to reproducibility Kenneth W. Witwer, Kenneth W. Witwer kwitwer1@jhmi.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-4233 Departments of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology and Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarolina Soekmadji, Carolina Soekmadji orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-6627 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew F. Hill, Andrew F. Hill orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-2354 Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarca H. Wauben, Marca H. Wauben Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEdit I. Buzás, Edit I. Buzás Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University and MTA-SE Immunoproteogenomics Extracellular Vesicle Research Group, Budapest, HungarySearch for more papers by this authorDolores Di Vizio, Dolores Di Vizio Division of Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, Departments of Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJuan M. Falcon-Perez, Juan M. Falcon-Perez Exosomes Laboratory & Metabolomics Platform, CIC bioGUNE, CIBERehd, Derio, Spain IKERBASQUE Research Science Foundation, Bilbao, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorChris Gardiner, Chris Gardiner Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFred Hochberg, Fred Hochberg Neurosurgery, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA The Scintillon Institute, La Jolla, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorIgor V. Kurochkin, Igor V. Kurochkin Central Research Laboratories, Sysmex Co, Kobe, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorJan Lötvall, Jan Lötvall orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-9249 Codiak BioSciences, Cambridge, MA, USA Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorSuresh Mathivanan, Suresh Mathivanan Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorRienk Nieuwland, Rienk Nieuwland Department of Clinical Chemistry and Vesicle Observation Centre, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorSusmita Sahoo, Susmita Sahoo Department of Medicine, Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USASearch for more papers by this authorHidetoshi Tahara, Hidetoshi Tahara Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorAna Claudia Torrecilhas, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNIFESP, Diadema, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAlissa M. Weaver, Alissa M. Weaver orcid.org/0000-0002-4096-8636 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorHang Yin, Hang Yin Center of Basic Molecular Science, Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorLei Zheng, Lei Zheng Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Song Gho, Yong Song Gho Department of Life Sciences, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology), Pohang, South KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Quesenberry, Peter Quesenberry Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USASearch for more papers by this authorClotilde Théry, Clotilde Théry clotilde.thery@curie.fr Institut Curie, INSERM U932, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this author Kenneth W. Witwer, Kenneth W. Witwer kwitwer1@jhmi.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-4233 Departments of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology and Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarolina Soekmadji, Carolina Soekmadji orcid.org/0000-0002-6920-6627 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew F. Hill, Andrew F. Hill orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-2354 Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMarca H. Wauben, Marca H. Wauben Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorEdit I. Buzás, Edit I. Buzás Department of Genetics, Cell- and Immunobiology, Semmelweis University and MTA-SE Immunoproteogenomics Extracellular Vesicle Research Group, Budapest, HungarySearch for more papers by this authorDolores Di Vizio, Dolores Di Vizio Division of Cancer Biology and Therapeutics, Departments of Surgery, Biomedical Sciences, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorJuan M. Falcon-Perez, Juan M. Falcon-Perez Exosomes Laboratory & Metabolomics Platform, CIC bioGUNE, CIBERehd, Derio, Spain IKERBASQUE Research Science Foundation, Bilbao, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorChris Gardiner, Chris Gardiner Research Department of Haematology, University College London, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFred Hochberg, Fred Hochberg Neurosurgery, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA The Scintillon Institute, La Jolla, CA, USASearch for more papers by this authorIgor V. Kurochkin, Igor V. Kurochkin Central Research Laboratories, Sysmex Co, Kobe, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorJan Lötvall, Jan Lötvall orcid.org/0000-0001-9195-9249 Codiak BioSciences, Cambridge, MA, USA Krefting Research Centre, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorSuresh Mathivanan, Suresh Mathivanan Department of Biochemistry and Genetics, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorRienk Nieuwland, Rienk Nieuwland Department of Clinical Chemistry and Vesicle Observation Centre, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorSusmita Sahoo, Susmita Sahoo Department of Medicine, Cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USASearch for more papers by this authorHidetoshi Tahara, Hidetoshi Tahara Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorAna Claudia Torrecilhas, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas Departamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas, UNIFESP, Diadema, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAlissa M. Weaver, Alissa M. Weaver orcid.org/0000-0002-4096-8636 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USASearch for more papers by this authorHang Yin, Hang Yin Center of Basic Molecular Science, Department of Chemistry, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorLei Zheng, Lei Zheng Department of Laboratory Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYong Song Gho, Yong Song Gho Department of Life Sciences, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology), Pohang, South KoreaSearch for more papers by this authorPeter Quesenberry, Peter Quesenberry Brown Medical School, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USASearch for more papers by this authorClotilde Théry, Clotilde Théry clotilde.thery@curie.fr Institut Curie, INSERM U932, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 December 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/20013078.2017.1396823Citations: 110AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat An editorial describing "minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles (EVs)", or more simply "minimal information for studies of EVs (MISEV)" was published in the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles in late 2014 [1]. Similar to guidelines in other scientific fields [2-4], "MISEV2014", as we will call it here, provided recommendations on experimental methods and minimal information in reporting. Specifically, three key areas were addressed: EV isolation/purification, EV characterization and EV functional studies (see Text Box 1). Table Text Box 1. Major recommendations of MISEV2014. 1. EV separation/isolation a) There is no single optimal isolation method, so choose based on the downstream applications and scientific question b) Report all details of the method(s) for reproducibility 2. EV characterization a) General characterization. Show: i. At least three positive protein markers of EVs, including at least one -transmembrane/lipid-bound protein -cytosolic protein ii. At least one negative protein marker b) Characterization of single vesicles: use two different but complementary techniques, for example: i. electron or atomic force microscopy (and show both close-up and wide-field) ii. single particle tracking 3. Functional studies should include: a) Dose–response studies b) Process controls to rule out influence of serum components/other possible contaminants c-i.) Density gradients to show activity is intrinsic to EVs, not just associated or c-ii.) EV depletion to remove activity or c-iii.) EV/cell labelling (e.g., fluorescent labelling, with careful interpretation) Brief review of MISEV2014 On separation of EVs (also referred to as isolation, purification or concentration), MISEV2014 acknowledged that there is no consensus on an "optimal" method, such as ultracentrifugation, size exclusion or immunoaffinity. Instead, selection of a method should be guided by the relevant scientific question and downstream applications, and all details of the method should be provided to ensure reproducibility. MISEV2014 recommended that EVcharacterization be performed at both the population and single vesicle levels. For the former, both positive and negative protein marker characterization was endorsed, following four categories of proteins: (1) transmembrane or lipid-bound EV protein, (2) EV cytosolic protein, (3) intracellular but not associated with plasma membrane or endosomes (i.e. relatively less abundant in exosomal EVs than in cells) and (4) extracellular but not typically EV-associated proteins. Several examples of proteins in each category were provided. For characterization of single vesicles, as a means to assess population heterogeneity, MISEV2014 called for the use of at least two different but complementary technologies. For example, electron or atomic force microscopy could be paired with one of the single particle tracking methods. Furthermore, close-up images should be accompanied by wide-field views to allow assessment of heterogeneity. For EV functional studies, MISEV2014 stated that quantitation of EVs and their activity should include dose–response studies. Process controls should be included, since contaminants might contribute activity. Use of density gradients was encouraged to show that any observed activity is intrinsic to EVs and not to closely associated, commonly co-purifying particles; alternatively, this activity should be depletable, e.g. by immunodepletion of EVs. Labelling studies were also recommended. Rigour vs flexibility MISEV2014 reflected a field in flux, with a need for standard development tempered by remaining uncertainties. Indeed, this is still the case. For this reason, the protein markers for general characterization that were listed in a table in the manuscript were presented as non-exclusive examples only, and no specific antibodies were recommended. Our understanding of categories such as "EV proteins" and "non-EV proteins" is still evolving, and these categories might better be labelled "EV-enriched" and "EV-depleted". Some described non-EV proteins have been found in vesicles and have biological effects. Instead of an inflexible approach, MISEV2014 urged that markers from different categories be used, and that all antibody details and sample manipulations be reported to ensure interpretability and reproducibility. What if scientists could not follow all guidelines? In this case, they were encouraged to explain why certain experiments could not be performed. The example of low-abundance, precious samples was given explicitly. That is, guidance was accompanied by acknowledgement of the realities of the field. Utility of MISEV2014 The value of MISEV2014 is supported by a key finding of van Deun and Hendrix [5] reporting on the release of the EV-TRACK knowledgebase [6]. The EV-TRACK project includes an "EV-METRIC" that can be calculated to gauge the quality of reporting of each EV-related paper. van Deun et al. found that, in the year after the release of MISEV2014, the EV-METRICs of publications overall did not improve significantly. However, publications that cited MISEV2014 had significantly higher EV-METRICs. Those who engaged with MISEV2014, then, seemed to be better equipped to report important experimental parameters. Of course, it takes time for laboratories to incorporate new methodologies and then go on to publish a paper based on them. Laboratories that were unaware of the MISEV effort before its publication may simply not have had time to incorporate the guidelines by the time our survey took place. How far has MISEV reached? Citations of MISEV2014 reached 400 in September 2017, according to Google Scholar. However, this number represents only a minority of EV-related publications. While MISEV is likely followed in many publications that do not cite it, and citations per se are certainly not the goal of standardization efforts, the MISEV2014 citation rate nonetheless suggests that broader dissemination and researcher involvement could be achieved. Opportunities and pulse-checking The ISEV community now faces choices to extend the value and reach of MISEV2014. Whereas MISEV2014 was produced by the ISEV Board of Directors as the elected representatives of ISEV – at that time including the three editors-in-chief of the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles – future developments will benefit from the input of a much broader authorship. Drawing on more expertise will allow a future iteration or offshoot of MISEV2014 to offer more detailed guidance in more areas, and/or to reflect greater consensus. A first step in this direction was to take the pulse of the community on where we came from (MISEV2014) and where we are going with standardization. 2016 MISEV survey: obtaining guidance from the experts A 14-question MISEV survey was released to the ISEV membership on 24 October 2016. See Text Box 2 for an outline of the survey. A total of 187 responses were submitted: 81% (152) within a 24-hour period, and almost 95% within 5 days. The survey was closed in early 2017. Table Text Box 2. ISEV 2016 MISEV survey. 1. I have read the MISEV minimal requirements paper (Lötvall et al., JEV, 2014) (yes/no) 2. I have published on extracellular vesicles in 2015 and/or 2016 (yes/no) 3. In your recent EV publication(s), did you (follow/cite/not follow or cite) MISEV? 4. Do you think that minimal reporting and/or methodologic requirements are important for the EV field? (yes/no) 5. Which of the following most closely summarizes your opinion on minimal requirements in the EV field? ° Minimal requirements are important, and I support MISEV ° Minimal requirements are important, and MISEV does not go far enough to uphold standards ° Minimal requirements are important, but MISEV is too restrictive ° Minimal requirements such as MISEV are an unnecessary imposition on the EV field ° I don't have strong feelings about minimal requirements 6. If standards are to be adopted, which of the following is preferable? ° ISEV, with a large and diverse membership, should continue to take the lead in establishing minimal requirements ° Minimal requirements are better established by national societies or regional collaborative networks ° Leading experts or laboratories should develop and publish their own standards, and the best (highest IF or most cited) publications will eventually become the de facto standards in the field ° I have no preference 7. An update to MISEV is planned … how should it proceed? ° The ISEV board and JEV editors should update MISEV as they see fit. ° The ISEV board should also recruit ISEV members who are not on the board to assist in updating MISEV ° The ISEV community as a whole should be involved in updating MISEV, with invitations to contribute to specific points; community-wide voting is not needed ° The ISEV community should be involved not only in contributing/feedback, but also in voting to ratify specific points 8. Please comment on sections/types of information should be retained in future MISEV updates (check all that are applicable) ° minimal requirements to claim the presence of EVs in isolates ° general characterization of EVs ° characterization of single EVs ° studies of functional activities of EVs ° recommendations for controls ° other/comments on the above 9. Needed additions to MISEV include: ° Advice on pros and cons of different isolation methods ° Advice on protein markers to use for different types of EVs ° Advice on reliable antibodies for the EV protein markers, for different applications (WB, flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, EM, etc.) ° Other (please specify) 10. If you would like to be involved in drafting or reviewing an update to MISEV, please provide your email address. Note: There will be additional opportunities to join the effort if you prefer not to disclose here. (Free form, optional) 11. If you would like to be involved in drafting or reviewing an update to MISEV, please describe your expertise in the EV field (e.g., published articles, unpublished work, specific areas of interest) (short answer, optional) 12. The following ISEV members should be consulted on MISEV updates (free form, optional) 13. If required, I/my laboratory are likely willing and able to devote a reasonable amount of resources to evaluate specific methods/reagents in the laboratory as needed to support a new MISEV release or other field-wide evaluation (yes/no) 14. Please share any other comments you may have (free form, optional) Respondents and their engagement with the MISEV2014 guidelines (Questions 1–3) Eighty-two per cent of respondents had read the MISEV2014 guidelines, whereas 18% had not. Fifty-six per cent of all respondents had published on EVs in 2015 or 2016 (i.e. after MISEV2014 appeared), whereas 44% had not. A slightly larger percentage of recent authors had read MISEV2014 (87%) compared with those who had not published on EVs recently (74%, Figure 1(a)). Seventy-one per cent of recently publishing authors indicated that they followed and/or cited MISEV2014 in their work (Figure 1(b)). Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Community engagement with MISEV. Perceived importance of guidelines (Questions 4 and 5) Since the MISEV2014 authors have received a wide range of praise and critical comments on the guidelines, we sought to determine how the ISEV community viewed EV reporting or experimental guidelines in general and MISEV2014 specifically. When the question was phrased, "Do you think that minimal reporting and/or methodologic requirements are important for the EV field?" (Question 4), only one respondent answered "no" (Figure 2(a)). There was thus near-unanimity among respondents that requirements are needed. A diversity of underlying opinions became apparent, though, through Question 5, a multiple-choice question about MISEV2014 in particular. Almost all respondents saw requirements as "important", and a majority (53%) supported MISEV2014 as is. However, 25% considered MISEV2014 to be too restrictive, whereas 16% said it was not stringent enough (Figure 2(b)). Four per cent thought that MISEV2014 was an unnecessary imposition on the field. In conclusion, most survey participants are in favour of standards, with a majority of respondents supporting MISEV2014. It is clear, though, that sizeable portions of the ISEV constituency might favour updates and changes to MISEV2014. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Opinions about minimal requirements in the EV field. Who should update MISEV2014 (Questions 6 and 7)? As for ISEV's role in updates to MISEV2014, approximately 80% of respondents named ISEV, "with its large and diverse membership", as the ideal body to issue requirements (Figure 3(a)). Other responses included "no preference" and nods to local or regional societies. Around 10% of respondents suggested that individual laboratories or scientists should publish requirements and that those with the highest impact factors or citations would become the de facto standards. The overwhelming emphasis on ISEV, however, places a responsibility on the society – leadership and membership – to advance standardization efforts for the field. One unambiguous outcome of the survey was that ISEV board members and JEV editors are not encouraged to update MISEV2014 alone. This approach was endorsed by only 4% of respondents (Figure 3(b)). Thirty-five per cent of participants asked the ISEV board to include ISEV members who are not on the board, and 62% felt that the entire ISEV community should be invited to participate. Of the latter group, approximately three in four said that community voting would not be necessary, whereas one in four favoured community-wide voting on specific points. Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Who should establish and update minimal requirements? Assembling a team for ongoingstandardization efforts A key goal of the MISEV2014 survey was to begin the process of identifying EV experts in addition to the previous MISEV2014 authorship and the ISEV Board of Directors who are able and willing to contribute to future community efforts. Sixty-eight respondents volunteered by providing their email addresses. Only two of these respondents were MISEV2014 authors or members of the ISEV Board of Directors. Fifty-six of the volunteers gave details of their areas of expertise, including publications in many cases. Additionally, 20 respondents suggested other EV experts who, in their view, should be involved in future updates to MISEV. These names included 22 who were not authors of the previous MISEV2014 publication and are not on the current ISEV board. Only minimal overlap between the "volunteers" and "volunteered" was observed. Thus, in total, approximately 85 unique individuals were identified as possible contributors. As stated in the survey, additional calls for volunteers will be made in the future. What topics should be retained or added (Questions 8 and 9)? The majority of respondents were in favour of keeping all current components of MISEV2014, with 85% or more supporting retention of minimal requirements to claim presence of EVs in isolates, general characterization of EVs and suggestions for controls. Smaller majorities endorsed retention of single EV guidelines and recommendations for functional studies (Figure 4(a)). What should or could be added in future MISEV updates? For Question 9, three choices were provided (specific recommendations on isolation methods, specific antibodies for detection and markers of multiple subtypes), along with an "other" comments box. While the way in which the survey was constructed prevented selection of more than one choice, the responses including the free-form comments made it clear that all selections were popular (Figure 4(b)). Updated recommendations on isolation methods were requested, including assessment of the proliferating commercial kit-based options to isolate EVs. Recommendations for judging the purity of vesicles were emphasized: while the presence of EVs is often shown, the presence and percentage of contaminants continue to be often ignored. Respondents suggested that contaminants could be categorized further based on EV sources (biofluids, tissues, cell-culture conditioned medium). Some felt that lists of reliable antibodies to detect EV positive or negative protein markers would be helpful, as well as guidelines on RNA, lipids and other EV components. Further guidelines on isolation method for functional studies were also raised, since isolation methods with different resultant purities may alter the functional roles of EV in vivo. Issuing from this problem, recommendations on experimental measurement of the activity of impurities were deemed important to place the functional roles of EVs in proper context. Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint MISEV: suggested retentions and additions. Positive and negative markers and contamination Examining the free-form comments for Questions 8 and 9, multiple responses addressed the problem of contamination and positive and negative markers. How does one recognize and quantitate the various possible contaminants? Can we arrive at a consensus purity measurement? How can activity of non-EV components be excluded in functional studies? What is a negative marker? Is it found exclusively in non-EV contaminants, or can it also be present, if at reduced relative amounts, in EVs? Should positive EV markers merely be found in EVs, or must they also be enriched? Other suggestions for additions Several commenters stressed the need to accommodate studies of EVs from rare cell types, low-abundance body fluids and other exceptions, and not simply take a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Recommendations on different subtypes of EVs were an item of interest for several respondents, as were newer or newly applied methods for EV separation. Other comments suggested topics such as storage of EVs, assessment of stability and omics analysis specific to EVs. Final comments box A final comments box in the survey was used by <7% of respondents. Most of these free-form responses were positive general comments on MISEV. One comment suggested that, for a MISEV update, a comprehensive review of methodologies might be useful. Several commenters emphasized that any future MISEV release should continue to allow for exceptions: cases where the requirements might be waived or recognized as inapplicable. Further action from the community to spread the word about EV minimal standards to journals and journal editors was also encouraged. Where do we go from here? Building bridges to enhance reproducibility in research Revealing and centralizing methodologic details are part of successful standardization. To this end, we recognize with enthusiasm the EV-TRACK knowledgebase that was announced in Nature Methods [6] and in the accompanying letter to the editor [5]. We strongly encourage EV researchers to join the EV-TRACK initiative (www.evtrack.org), to use its tools to help guide effective research design and evaluation, and to obtain an EV-METRIC for each manuscript. We also hope the EV-METRIC will be included in submissions to the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles and to other journals, as well. How will MISEV be updated? In addition to exciting initiatives like EV-TRACK, minimal requirements in the field must also be updated regularly. This will be a large task as the field grows, and input is sought from a wider swath. We were interested to read a "guidelines to guidelines" recently published by Daniel J. Klionsky [7], noted autophagy researcher and the driving force behind the well-known autophagy guidelines. These guidelines, published in 2008 [8] and updated in 2012 [9] and 2016 [10], now include several thousand authors who reviewed the text and offered changes in a carefully guided manner. Klionsky's staged writing process and a distributed author invitation plan ensure efficient progress but broad embrace of the global research body. In our view, the type of community consensus and buy-in fostered by this approach is exactly what we feel would be most valuable to EV researchers in an upcoming manifestation of the MISEV guidelines and also consistent with what the MISEV survey respondents indicated about their willingness and desire to be involved. Regarding uncertainty Standardization through MISEV updates is important, but of course uncertainty will remain that cannot be removed through minimal requirements alone. On many specific questions in EV research, including, for example, some quite basic matters of pre-analytical variables, the jury is still out. Careful comparisons to resolve these questions are conducted and published less often than might be optimal. This is because of the resources they require, resources that could otherwise be channelled into evaluating biological hypotheses that are more likely to secure funding. Importantly – and perhaps surprisingly to those who are less familiar with our highly collaborative field – 55% of respondents to the MISEV survey said that they or their laboratories could "devote reasonable resources" to evaluations, if these were to become necessary for MISEV updates. The language was kept intentionally vague, but "evaluations" could mean anything from literature reviews to technical/experimental comparisons. It is encouraging that such a large percentage of participants indicated a willingness to engage in coordinated activities. As needed, a Standardization Committee of ISEV could be formed to establish working groups on topics that have not been fully addressed and thus focus the substantial energies of the community. Summary Overall, the response to the ISEV survey on MISEV2014 produced three core findings: the value of MISEV2014, the need for regular updates that involve the wider community and the strong commitment of the ISEV community to advance the field through standardization efforts. Acknowledgements The contributions of all respondents to the MISEV2014 survey are gratefully acknowledged. The drafting authors would like to mention funding sources: US NIH DA040385 (KWW and CT), US NIH AG057430 (KWW) and US DoD W81XWH-16-1-0736 (CS). Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Biography KWW, CT, AF and MHM prepared the survey. KWW and CS analysed the results and wrote the manuscript. CT provided writing and planning assistance. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and provided feedback. References 1Lotvall J, Hill AF, Hochberg F, et al. Minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles and their functions: a position statement from the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles. J Extracell Vesicles [Internet]. 2014; 3: 1. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536934 2Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem [Internet]. 2009 Feb 28; 55(4): 611– 8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246619 3Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet [Internet]. 2001 Dec 01; 29(4): 365– 371. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726920 4Lee JA, Spidlen J, Boyce K, et al. MIFlowCyt: the minimum information about a flow cytometry experiment. Cytom Part A [Internet]. 2008 Oct; 73A(10): 926– 930. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752282 5van Deun J, Hendrix A. Is your article EV-TRACKed? J Extracell Vesicles. Forthcoming 2017; 1. 6van Deun J, Mestdagh P, Agostinis P, et al. EV-TRACK: transparent reporting and centralizing knowledge in extracellular vesicle research. Nat Methods [Internet]. 2017 Feb 28; 14(3): 228– 232. [cited 2017 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28245209 7Klionsky DJ. Developing a set of guidelines for your research field: a practical approach. Mol Biol Cell [Internet]. 2016 Mar 1; 27(5): 733– 738. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26915690 8Klionsky DJ, Abeliovich H, Agostinis P, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes. Autophagy [Internet]. 2008 Feb; 4(2): 151– 175. [cited 2017 Sep 16]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188003 9Klionsky D, Agholme L, Agnello M, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy Autophagy. 2012; 8(4): 445– 544. 10Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition). doi.org [Internet]. 2016 Jan 2. p. 1– 222. (1). [cited 2017 Sep 21]. Available form: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26799652 Citing Literature Volume6, Issue1December 20171396823 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation

Abstract:Clinical and Translational MedicineVolume 12, Issue 3 e767 LETTER TO EDITOROpen Access RAB2A promotes cervical cancer progression as revealed by comprehensive analysis of HPV integration and proteome in longitudinal cervical samples Yifan Meng, Corresponding Author Yifan Meng mengyf@sysucc.org.cn Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorShitong Lin, Shitong Lin Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYi Zhou, Yi Zhou orcid.org/0000-0001-5195-5294 Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province and Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiao Yi, Xiao Yi Westlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co. Ltd., Hangzhou, Zhejiang, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorPing Wu, Ping Wu Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorQing Zhang, Qing Zhang Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWeigang Ge, Weigang Ge Westlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co. Ltd., Hangzhou, Zhejiang, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorCanhui Cao, Canhui Cao orcid.org/0000-0002-7328-0264 Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorPeipei Gao, Peipei Gao Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWenhua Zhi, Wenhua Zhi Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorTing Peng, Ting Peng Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJuncheng Wei, Juncheng Wei Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWencheng Ding, Wencheng Ding Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorDing Ma, Ding Ma Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorGuoliang Li, Guoliang Li Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province and Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorQin Yang, Corresponding Author Qin Yang 70918404@qq.com Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorTiannan Guo, Corresponding Author Tiannan Guo guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorXi Zeng, Corresponding Author Xi Zeng zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province and Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorPeng Wu, Corresponding Author Peng Wu pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn orcid.org/0000-0003-4498-7663 Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this author Yifan Meng, Corresponding Author Yifan Meng mengyf@sysucc.org.cn Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorShitong Lin, Shitong Lin Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorYi Zhou, Yi Zhou orcid.org/0000-0001-5195-5294 Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province and Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiao Yi, Xiao Yi Westlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co. Ltd., Hangzhou, Zhejiang, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorPing Wu, Ping Wu Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorQing Zhang, Qing Zhang Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWeigang Ge, Weigang Ge Westlake Omics (Hangzhou) Biotechnology Co. Ltd., Hangzhou, Zhejiang, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorCanhui Cao, Canhui Cao orcid.org/0000-0002-7328-0264 Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorPeipei Gao, Peipei Gao Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWenhua Zhi, Wenhua Zhi Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorTing Peng, Ting Peng Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJuncheng Wei, Juncheng Wei Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorWencheng Ding, Wencheng Ding Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorDing Ma, Ding Ma Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorGuoliang Li, Guoliang Li Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province and Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorQin Yang, Corresponding Author Qin Yang 70918404@qq.com Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorTiannan Guo, Corresponding Author Tiannan Guo guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorXi Zeng, Corresponding Author Xi Zeng zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province and Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this authorPeng Wu, Corresponding Author Peng Wu pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn orcid.org/0000-0003-4498-7663 Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Cancer Biology Research Center (Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education), Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China Correspondence Peng Wu, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: pengwu8626@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn Xi Zeng, Agricultural Bioinformatics Key Laboratory of Hubei Province, Hubei Engineering Technology Research Center of Agricultural Big Data, College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: zengxi@mail.hzau.edu.cn Tiannan Guo, Key Laboratory of Structural Biology of Zhejiang Province, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China. Email: guotiannan@westlake.edu.cn Qin Yang, Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. Email: 70918404@qq.com Yifan Meng, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Email: mengyf@sysucc.org.cnSearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 March 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/ctm2.767 Yifan Meng, Shitong Lin, Yi Zhou and Xiao Yi contributed equally to this work. AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Dear editor, To date, no relevant research has explored the dynamic changes in omics to investigate the mechanisms driving the process of cervical cancer malignant transformation. We explored the role of HPV in the development of CIN into cervical cancer from an individual evolution perspective to reveal the underlying molecular changes and mechanisms related to HPV-induced carcinogenesis. We thus suggested that RAB2A could serve as a potential predictive biomarker for the longitudinal monitoring and prognosis of HPV+ patients. Analysis of cervical squamous cell carcinoma shows that human papillomavirus (HPV) integration occurs in more than 80% of cervical cancers,1 suggesting the integrations of HPV genomic DNA plays an important role in promoting oncogenesis.2 In the present study, we enrolled 101 longitudinal monitoring patients (Figure S1) and collected both HPV+ normal cervical epithelium and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) tissues to detect HPV integrations (Tables S1 and S2).3-5 A total of 1041 high-frequency HPV integrations were thus obtained (Figure S2, Table S3). Among all cervical samples, the overall prevalence rate of HPV integration was 74.8% (157/210). Both the number and the normalized frequency of HPV integrations increased during the early phases of cervical lesions progression, and then significantly decreased during the progression (Figure S3). We next annotated the HPV16 and the HPV18 integration breakpoints and found that breakpoints could appear in any part of the HPV genome, with stage-specific enrichments during tumour progression (Figures S4–S6). A total of 1041 HPV integrations were annotated in 909 genes from the human genome by ANNOVAR. Several loci showed a significantly high frequency of HPV integrations, including KLF5 (in 50 out of 210 samples), CCAT1 (42/210), FHIT (19/210) and CCDC106 (26/210) (Figure 1A). We investigated the enrichment of HPV breakpoints in CpG islands (Figure 1B). Common fragile regions (CFRs, Figure 1C) and simple repeats (Figure S7) were significantly enriched in both normal and CIN stages, indicating that these integrations may be involved in the early stage of tumour development actively. We also explored the overlap between HPV integrations that were shared between all three stages (Figure 1D). Interestingly, HPV integrations were enriched in different pathways at different stages, indicating a stage-specific integration paradigm (Figure 1E). In terms of gene structure, HPV integration frequently occurred within the introns of FHIT, CCAT1, CCDC106 and the intergenic region between KLF5/KLF12 (Figure S8). Furthermore, KLF5, LINC00392, CCAT1 and CCDC106 were the most common HPV-integrated genes in both the normal (HPV+) and the CIN stages (Table S4), which were consistent with findings of between-group comparisons. FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Distribution of breakpoints in the human genome. (A) Hotspot genes of HPV integration at normal (HPV+), CIN and tumour stages. From the outer to the inner circle, blue, yellow and red bars represent the frequency of HPV integration. Some loci with high rates of integration are marked. The maximum values are 25, 25 and 10 (statistics were performed for each gene). (B) Enrichment of HPV breakpoints in CpG islands. (C) Enrichment of HPV breakpoints in fragile regions. The following abbreviations were used: NFR, nonfragile regions; CFR, common fragile regions; RFR, rare fragile regions. (D) Venn diagram showing the distribution of HPV integrations. (E) KEGG pathways enrichment for the HPV integrations at different stages To explore the proteome changes, a subgroup of 20 cervical samples (10 HPV+ normal cervical epithelium, and their corresponding CIN samples) with sufficient residual tissues were then selected for data-independent acquisition-mass spectrometry. Altogether, we identified 7623 proteins, 555 of which showed significantly different abundances between the two stages (Figures 2A and S9A, Table S5). Between the cervical carcinoma and normal adjacent tissues, 9364 proteins were identified, with 2863 of these were significantly different in abundance (Figures 2B and S9B and Table S6). We used Metascape to identify the pathways that most significantly distinguished CIN from normal (HPV+) tissues (Figure 2C), and those that distinguished cervical carcinoma from normal adjacent tissues (Figure 2D). Experimental validation of representative proteins was then performed with parallel reaction monitoring in fresh frozen cervical carcinoma and its adjacent normal tissue. All genes that underwent HPV integration were screened, including 50 protein-coding genes with ≥2 integration events, and genes coding differentially expressed proteins (Table S7). Our results showed that 21 proteins were significantly regulated in tumour tissues compared with their adjacent tissues, including five downregulated and 16 upregulated proteins (Figure 2E). FIGURE 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Proteome profiling of cervical specimens at different stages of carcinogenesis. (A) Volcano plots of the proteins with significant abundance differences between CIN and normal (HPV+) tissues from the data-independent acquisition dataset (|log2 (fold-change)| > 0.35, p value ≤ .05). (B) Top 20 clusters of differentially expressed proteins between CIN and normal (HPV+) tissues. (C) Volcano plots of the proteins with significant abundance differences between cervical carcinoma and normal adjacent tissues in DIA dataset (|log2 (fold-change)| > 0.5, adjusted p value by BH method ≤ .05). (D) Top 20 clusters of differentially expressed proteins between cervical carcinoma and normal adjacent tissues. (E) Expression of 21 selected proteins from the parallel reaction monitoring dataset that were significantly regulated in tumour tissues compared to adjacent normal tissues. Student's t-test was used to compute the significance between normal and tumour samples (unpaired two-sided Welch's t-test, *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001, ****p < .0001) To evaluate the effects of HPV integrations on the protein expression during carcinogenesis, we then examined the associations between HPV integrations and proteomic data (Figure S10). We searched for all encoding genes in the vicinity of the integration locus in proteome data and clustered 94 proteins which were differentially expressed in tumour tissues (Figure S11A). We investigated the clinical and prognostic value of the regulated proteins with the TCGA-CESC cohort using GEPIA26 and found that cervical cancer patients with elevated RAB2A, SPCS3, PLEC, RAB32, NCKAP1, SDF4, RBM28, PLS3 and PFKP had a significantly lower survival (Figures S11B–D and S12). We generated an interaction network7 to explore the possible interactions between the 94 differentially expressed proteins and HPV integration events (Figure S13), in which RAB2A was found to interact with RAB32 and SUCLG2. Furthermore, ingenuine pathway analysis identified cell-to-cell signalling and interaction as the most significantly activated pathway relevant to RAB2A (Figure S14). The expression pattern of RAB2A was examined in the TCGA-CESC cohort through cBioPortal (Figure S15).8 Our results showed that 43 of the 297 patients (14%) displayed RAB2A mRNA alterations. We found that RAB2A expression was significantly increased in primary cancer compared with its adjacent normal cervical tissue (p = .0083, Figure S16). Because RAB2A basal expression in the C33A and ME180 cell lines was higher than that in the SiHa and HeLa cell lines (Figure 3A and B), C33A and ME180 cells were therefore transfected with RAB2A siRNA (Figure 3C and D) and showed significantly decreased scratch wound healing and lower migration abilities (Table S8; Figures 3E–G and S17). Our results also showed that the overexpression of RAB2A significantly promoted cell migration and invasion (Table S9; Figures 4A–D and S18 and S19). We also observed that the expression of E-cadherin decreased, while N-cadherin and Snail-1 had an increased expression in SiHa and HeLa cells overexpressing RAB2A. The opposite trend was observed for RAB2A knockdown ME180 cells (Figure 4E and F). These results indicated that RAB2A may affect epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition induction. The animal experiments showed that the overexpression of RAB2A promoted tumour growth and metastasis in nude mice (p < .05). Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4G, liver metastasis was found in one out of five experimental mice, whereas no metastasis occurred among the controls. FIGURE 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The downregulation of RAB2A suppresses the migration and invasion of cervical cells. (A, B) The basal level of RAB2A in cervical cancer cell lines was measured by qPCR and western blot. (C, D) The efficiency of siRNA in C33A and ME180 cells was assessed by qPCR and western blot. (E, F) Transwell migration and invasion assays performed with ME180 cells. (G) Wound healing scratches imaged immediately and 48 h after the initial scratch to quantify the relative migration FIGURE 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The upregulation of RAB2A promotes the migration and invasion of SiHa and HeLa cells. (A) Lentiviral transfection efficiency measured by qPCR and Western blot. (B, C) Transwell migration and invasion assays performed with SiHa and HeLa cells. (D) Wound healing scratches imaged immediately and 48 h after the initial scratch to quantify the relative migration. (E) Effects of RAB2A overexpression on EMT marker in SiHa and HeLa cells. (F) Effects of RAB2A knockdown on EMT marker in ME180 cells. (G) HeLa cells stably overexpressing RAB2A were inoculated into the cervix of female nude mice to generate orthotopic mice models. The arrows indicate the tumours' locations In conclusion, RAB2A may serve as a potential predictive biomarker for longitudinal monitoring in HPV+ patients. Future investigations of our proteomics and HPV integration datasets could provide further insights into cervical cancer development. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFC2701201), National Natural Science Foundation of China (82103134, 82072895, 81772775 and 31900479), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2662019QD019) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2020M683102). COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Supporting Information Filename Description ctm2767-sup-0001-SuppMat1.xlsx285.1 KB Supporting information ctm2767-sup-0002-SuppMat2.docx7 MB Supporting information Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. REFERENCES 1School of Medicine, Institute of Human Virology, Institute for Systems Biology, et al. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer. Nature. 2017; 543(7645): 378- 384. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21386CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2McBride AA, Warburton A. The role of integration in oncogenic progression of HPV-associated cancers. PLoS Pathog. 2017; 13(4): e1006211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006211CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3Hu Z, Zhu D, Wang W, et al. Genome-wide profiling of HPV integration in cervical cancer identifies clustered genomic hot spots and a potential microhomology-mediated integration mechanism. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(2): 158- 163. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3178CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4Li W, Zeng X, Lee NP, et al. HIVID: an efficient method to detect HBV integration using low coverage sequencing. Genomics. 2013; 102(4): 338- 344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2013.07.002CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5Zeng X, Zhao L, Shen C, Zhou Y, Li G, Sung WK. HIVID2: an accurate tool to detect virus integrations in the host genome. Bioinformatics. 2021. Online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab031Web of Science®Google Scholar 6Tang Z, Kang B, Li C, Chen T, Zhang Z. GEPIA2: an enhanced web server for large-scale expression profiling and interactive analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47(W1): W556- W560. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz430CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7Szklarczyk D, Franceschini A, Kuhn M, et al. The STRING database in 2011: functional interaction networks of proteins, globally integrated and scored. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011; 39: D561- D568. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq973. Database issue. CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 8Gao J, Aksoy BA, Dogrusoz U, et al. Integrative analysis of complex cancer genomics and clinical profiles using the cBioPortal. Sci Signal. 2013; 6(269): pl1. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2004088CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume12, Issue3March 2022e767 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation

Updating the MISEV Minimal Requirements for Extracellular Vesicle Studies: Building Bridges to Reproducibility

Ruxolitinib Combined with Dexamethasone in Adult Patients with Newly Diagnosed Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Single‐center Pilot Trial

An Optimized Integrin Α6‐targeted Peptide for Positron Emission Tomography/magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pancreatic Cancer and Its Precancerous Lesion

Tribute to Paul M. Vanhoutte, MD, PhD (1940–2019)

Highly Efficient Capture of Circulating Tumor Cells by Using Nanostructured Silicon Substrates with Integrated Chaotic Micromixers

Generation of a Self‐cleaved Inducible Cre Recombinase for Efficient Temporal Genetic Manipulation

Polymer Nanofiber‐Embedded Microchips for Detection, Isolation, and Molecular Analysis of Single Circulating Melanoma Cells

Specific Capture and Release of Circulating Tumor Cells Using Aptamer-Modified Nanosubstrates

Erratum: Adaptability of the semi-invariant natural killer T-cell receptor towards structurally diverse CD1d-restricted ligands (The EMBO Journal (2009) 28 (3579-3590) DOI: 10.1038/emboj.2009.286

Whole‐Cell Oxidations and Dehalogenations

The Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale: Status, Critique, and Recommendations.

Highlights From the American Heart Association's EPI|Lifestyle Scientific Sessions 2023

RNA M 6 A Methylation Regulates Sorafenib Resistance in Liver Cancer Through FOXO 3‐mediated Autophagy

A Serotonergic Axon-Cilium Synapse Drives Nuclear Signaling to Maintain Chromatin Accessibility.

Mapping Long‐range Contacts Between Risk Loci and Target Genes in Human Diseases with Capture Hi‐C

RAB2A Promotes Cervical Cancer Progression As Revealed by Comprehensive Analysis of HPV Integration and Proteome in Longitudinal Cervical Samples.

Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles 2018 (MISEV2018): a position statement of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles and update of the MISEV2014 guidelines

Detection of Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Directly from Urine Samples in Patients Suspected of Urinary Tract Infection by Metagenomics Nanopore Sequencing: A Large-Scale Multi-Centre Study

Long‐term Outcomes of Relapsed/refractory Double‐hit Lymphoma (r/r DHL) Treated with CD19/22 CAR T‐cell Cocktail Therapy

Characteristics of Patients with Spontaneous Versus Drug-Induced Brugada Electrocardiogram: Sub-Analysis from the SABRUS

Asia–Pacific Working Party on Non‐alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Guidelines 2017—part 1: Definition, Risk Factors and Assessment