Abstract:Remote Sensing in Ecology and ConservationVolume 3, Issue 2 p. 53-56 EditorialOpen Access Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation: three years on Nathalie Pettorelli, Nathalie Pettorelli Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorHarini Nagendra, Harini Nagendra School of Development, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, Karnataka, IndiaSearch for more papers by this authorDuccio Rocchini, Duccio Rocchini Center for Agriculture Food and Environment, University of Trento, San Michele all'Adige, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorMarcus Rowcliffe, Marcus Rowcliffe Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorRob Williams, Rob Williams Oceans Initiative, Seattle, Washington, USASearch for more papers by this authorJorge Ahumada, Jorge Ahumada Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring (TEAM), Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarlos De Angelo, Carlos De Angelo Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Universidad Nacional de Misiones and CONICET, Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, ArgentinaSearch for more papers by this authorClement Atzberger, Clement Atzberger Institute for Surveying, Remote Sensing and Land Information, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, AustriaSearch for more papers by this authorDoreen Boyd, Doreen Boyd School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorGraeme Buchanan, Graeme Buchanan RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorAlienor Chauvenet, Alienor Chauvenet School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMathias Disney, Mathias Disney Department of Geography, University College London, London, and NERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorClare Duncan, Clare Duncan School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorTemilola Fatoyinbo, Temilola Fatoyinbo Biospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this authorNestor Fernandez, Nestor Fernandez Department of Conservation Biology, CSIC Estacion Biologica de Doñana, Seville, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorMuki Haklay, Muki Haklay Department of Civil Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorKate He, Kate He Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, USASearch for more papers by this authorNed Horning, Ned Horning Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USASearch for more papers by this authorNatalie Kelly, Natalie Kelly Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorHelen de Klerk, Helen de Klerk Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South AfricaSearch for more papers by this authorXuehua Liu, Xuehua Liu School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorNathan Merchant, Nathan Merchant Noise & Bioacoustics Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorJosé Paruelo, José Paruelo National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaSearch for more papers by this authorHelen Roy, Helen Roy NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorShovonlal Roy, Shovonlal Roy Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorSadie Ryan, Sadie Ryan Department of Geography, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USASearch for more papers by this authorRahel Sollmann, Rahel Sollmann Department of Wildlife Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USASearch for more papers by this authorJennifer Swenson, Jennifer Swenson Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this authorMartin Wegmann, Martin Wegmann Department of Remote Sensing, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, GermanySearch for more papers by this author Nathalie Pettorelli, Nathalie Pettorelli Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorHarini Nagendra, Harini Nagendra School of Development, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, Karnataka, IndiaSearch for more papers by this authorDuccio Rocchini, Duccio Rocchini Center for Agriculture Food and Environment, University of Trento, San Michele all'Adige, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorMarcus Rowcliffe, Marcus Rowcliffe Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorRob Williams, Rob Williams Oceans Initiative, Seattle, Washington, USASearch for more papers by this authorJorge Ahumada, Jorge Ahumada Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring (TEAM), Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USASearch for more papers by this authorCarlos De Angelo, Carlos De Angelo Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Universidad Nacional de Misiones and CONICET, Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, ArgentinaSearch for more papers by this authorClement Atzberger, Clement Atzberger Institute for Surveying, Remote Sensing and Land Information, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, AustriaSearch for more papers by this authorDoreen Boyd, Doreen Boyd School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorGraeme Buchanan, Graeme Buchanan RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorAlienor Chauvenet, Alienor Chauvenet School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorMathias Disney, Mathias Disney Department of Geography, University College London, London, and NERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorClare Duncan, Clare Duncan School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorTemilola Fatoyinbo, Temilola Fatoyinbo Biospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this authorNestor Fernandez, Nestor Fernandez Department of Conservation Biology, CSIC Estacion Biologica de Doñana, Seville, SpainSearch for more papers by this authorMuki Haklay, Muki Haklay Department of Civil Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorKate He, Kate He Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, USASearch for more papers by this authorNed Horning, Ned Horning Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, USASearch for more papers by this authorNatalie Kelly, Natalie Kelly Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorHelen de Klerk, Helen de Klerk Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South AfricaSearch for more papers by this authorXuehua Liu, Xuehua Liu School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorNathan Merchant, Nathan Merchant Noise & Bioacoustics Team, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorJosé Paruelo, José Paruelo National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaSearch for more papers by this authorHelen Roy, Helen Roy NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorShovonlal Roy, Shovonlal Roy Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorSadie Ryan, Sadie Ryan Department of Geography, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USASearch for more papers by this authorRahel Sollmann, Rahel Sollmann Department of Wildlife Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USASearch for more papers by this authorJennifer Swenson, Jennifer Swenson Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USASearch for more papers by this authorMartin Wegmann, Martin Wegmann Department of Remote Sensing, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, GermanySearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 June 2017 https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.53Citations: 15AboutSectionsPDF 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 In 2014, Wiley and the Zoological Society of London launched Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, an open-access journal that aims to support communication and collaboration among experts in remote sensing, ecology and conservation science. Remote sensing was from the start understood as the acquisition of information about an object or phenomenon through a device that is not in physical contact with the object, thus including camera traps, field spectrometry, terrestrial and aquatic acoustic sensors, aerial and satellite monitoring as well as ship-borne automatic identification systems (Pettorelli et al. 2015). The primary goals of this new journal were, and still are, to maximize the understanding and uptake of remote sensing-based techniques and products by the ecological and conservation communities, prioritizing findings that advance the scientific basis of, and applied outcomes from, ecology and conservation science; and to identify ecological challenges that might direct development of future remote sensors and data products. In October 2015, the first issue of the journal was published, with four other issues produced in 2016 and four to be published in 2017. As Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation is about to complete its second full year of publication and is working towards a first impact factor score in early 2019, the time has come to reflect on how the journal has done to date, what impact it has had, which niches it has successfully filled and where the journal is yet to meet its full potential. By sharing our successes and experiences so far with our contributors and readers, we hope to demonstrate how Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation has swiftly gained significant visibility and status among scientists and practitioners interested in natural resource management. So what is our record so far? Since its inception and up until late December 2016, 24 peer-reviewed papers have been published in Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, including 15 original research papers, three policy forums, five interdisciplinary perspectives and one review. As of the 31st of March 2017, average downloads per article was 1038 for articles published in 2015 (bearing in mind that only six contributions were published that year), and 899 for 2016. Table 1 provides the total number of downloads as of the 31st of March 2017 for each article published in Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. The global reach of the journal is also reflected in its readership, as shown in Figure 1. Table 1. Total number of downloads (as at 31/3/2017) and altmetric scores for each article published in Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation in 2015 and 2016. The articles are listed in order of the highest to the lowest numbers of downloads Publication year Article title Type of contribution No. of full text downloads Altmetric score 2015 Will remote sensing shape the next generation of species distribution models? Interdisciplinary perspectives 5141 55 2016 Framing the concept of satellite remote sensing essential biodiversity variables: challenges and future directions Policy forum 3983 81 2016 Satellite remote sensing to monitor species diversity: potential and pitfalls Review 3103 92 2015 Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Policy forum 3011 30 2015 Under the snow: a new camera trap opens the white box of subnivean ecology Research 2068 41 2016 From imagery to ecology: leveraging time series of all available Landsat observations to map and monitor ecosystem state and dynamics Research 1763 23 2016 Patterns of twenty- first century forest loss across a global network of important sites for biodiversity Research 1712 104 2015 Testing the water: detecting artificial water points using freely available satellite data and open source software Research 1586 30 2016 Is waveform worth it? A comparison of LiDAR approaches for vegetation and landscape characterization Interdisciplinary perspectives 1563 19 2015 Life- history attributes and resource dynamics determine intraspecific home-range sizes in Carnivora Research 1532 33 2015 High-resolution forest canopy height estimation in an African blue carbon ecosystem Research 1502 46 2016 Wildlife speed cameras: measuring animal travel speed and day range using camera traps Research 1287 27 2016 An invasive- native mammalian species replacement process captured by camera trap survey random encounter models Research 1135 28 2016 Sea turtle nesting patterns in Florida vis-a- vis satellite-derived measures of artificial lighting Research 1057 84 2016 Remote sensing of species dominance and the value for quantifying ecosystem services Interdisciplinary perspectives 1017 12 2016 Integrating LiDAR-derived tree height and Landsat satellite reflectance to estimate forest regrowth in a tropical agricultural landscape Research 988 48 2016 How do passive infrared triggered camera traps operate and why does it matter? Breaking down common misconceptions Interdisciplinary perspectives 966 14 2016 The higher you go the less you will know: placing camera traps high to avoid theft will affect detection Research 858 33 2016 The role of space agencies in remotely sensed essential biodiversity variables Policy forum 843 18 2016 Observing ecosystems with lightweight, rapid-scanning terrestrial lidar scanners Research 747 11 2016 A simple remote sensing based information system for monitoring sites of conservation importance Interdisciplinary perspectives 616 1 2016 Upland vegetation mapping using Random Forests with optical and radar satellite data Research 449 13 2016 Ultrasonic monitoring to assess the impacts of forest conversion on Solomon Island bats Research 420 19 2016 Earth observation archives for plant conservation: 50 years monitoring of Itigi-Sumbu thicket Research 377 12 Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The geographic distribution of full text downloads of Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation in 2016. Are these papers impactful? Have these papers been cited? If so, have they been cited in both remote sensing and ecological and conservation journals? The short answer is yes, yes, and yes. In 2015 alone, our papers received a total of 10384 viewings with an average of 1038 accesses per article, placing Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation fourth out of all Wiley journals for the top full-text download accesses per article. Based on available altmetric data for the 24 contributions published in 2015 and 2016, the average altmetric score was 36 at the end of March 2017, with several articles achieving altmetric scores of 80 or above (Table 1). Our citations records for these contributions are equally strong given our young history. According to Scopus, our 2015 and 2016 papers have so far been cited 63 times (or 133 times according to Google scholar) in 37 peer reviewed journals, including Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Journal of Applied Ecology, Biodiversity and Conservation, Remote Sensing of Environment, Progress in Physical Geography, Ecology and Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Interestingly, our most popular contributions have by far been Policy Forums and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, with one Perspective and a Policy Forum published in late 2015 cited over 10 times by the end of March 2017. It is important at this stage to acknowledge that Scopus has a different coverage to Clarivate Analytics (who produce impact factor scores), and that the numbers presented relied on specific data requests, which means that some citations may have been missed. As such, these data should be interpreted as indicative, and obviously a different set of data will be used to generate the first impact factor for Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. What can we learn from these statistics and reports? Without doubt, there was a need for a publishing platform that capitalizes on the growing set of interdisciplinary research interests shared by the remote sensing, ecological and conservation communities, and indications so far are that Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation has successfully engaged many members of these communities (Fig. 2). Launching a new journal in the context of a competitive publishing environment was always going to be difficult, especially as new journals cannot use impact factors to attract top-notch contributions. Despite these challenges, Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation has managed to publish regular, high-quality issues that have attracted the attention of, and recognition from, the audiences it seeks to enthuse. As we build up a track record of publishing excellent science that is reaching its intended audience, and as the prospect of getting our first impact factor approaches, we know that our efforts have paid off, and that our journal is here to stay. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Keyword wordle, based on the keywords used by authors to describe their contributions published in Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation. But we are still far from where we want to be. Our contributions so far have mainly targeted the terrestrial realm, and primarily relate to the use of satellite remote sensing data. Thanks to two successful calls for special issues and the recent appointment of several new editorial board members, we have recently seen an increase in the number of submissions capitalizing on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and camera traps to address ecological and conservation issues. Going forward, we will be redoubling our efforts to engage with communities working with marine and freshwater ecosystems and scientists interested in acoustics. Growing submissions in these areas is a priority for the years to come, as is further supporting knowledge transfer among researchers and practitioners involved with different remote sensing technologies. But above all, our top priority remains providing a platform where people can publish excellent science important to the ecology and conservation of biodiversity. Ultimately, we believe the concept of remote sensing for theoretical and applied ecological research is innovative and exciting; we are delighted to reflect this through the manuscripts we publish and look forward to extending our reach to encompass diverse technologies across environments. Reference Pettorelli, N., H. Nagendra, R. Williams, D. Rocchini, and E. Fleishman. 2015. A new platform to support research at the interface of remote sensing, ecology and conservation. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 1– 3. Citing Literature Volume3, Issue2June 2017Pages 53-56 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation

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

Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation: Three Years On

Palaeontology from Australasia and beyond: Abstracts from Palaeo Down Under 3 Perth, Western Australia, July 2023

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

5Th International Symposium on Focused Ultrasound

Surface Volatiles on the Moon

Effect of psychosocial stress on FKBP5 and NR3C1 gene expression in healthy young men

Whole-genome sequencing identifies non-coding variants near EN 1 with large effects on bone mineral density

Fungal Planet description sheets: 1112–1181

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

Naming Conventions in Geomorphology: Contributions and Controversies in the Sandstone Landscape of Zhangjiajie Geopark, China

A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Importance of patient bed pathways and length of stay differences in predicting COVID-19 hospital bed occupancy in England

Worldwide Soundscapes: a synthesis of passive acoustic monitoring across realms

International Society for Therapeutic Ultrasound Conference 2016: Tel Aviv, Israel. 14-18 March, 2016

Global maps of soil temperature

Age and Thrombectomy Outcome Mediation by Frailty Neuroimaging Markers in Patients With Stroke

Interpretable discriminant analysis for functional data supported on random nonlinear domains with an application to Alzheimer’s disease

Biological Earth observation with animal sensors

International Society for Therapeutic Ultrasound Conference 2016

An Open Letter in Support of Transformative Biotechnology and Social Innovation: SANKO University Innovation Summit in Medicine and Integrative Biology, Gaziantep, Turkey, May 5–7, 2016

Population-based Cohort Study of Outcomes Following Cholecystectomy for Benign Gallbladder Diseases