Abstract:Article23 January 2020free access UHMK1 promotes gastric cancer progression through reprogramming nucleotide metabolism Xing Feng orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-3389 The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Guangxi Neurological Diseases Clinical Research Center, Guilin, Guangxi, China Department of Immuobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA Search for more papers by this author Dong Ma Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China Search for more papers by this author Jiabao Zhao Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Yongxi Song Department of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China Search for more papers by this author Yuekun Zhu Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Search for more papers by this author Qingxin Zhou Department of Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Search for more papers by this author Fei Ma Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Search for more papers by this author Xing Liu Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Search for more papers by this author Mengya Zhong Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Yu Liu Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Yubo Xiong Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Xingfeng Qiu Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Zhen Zhang Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China Search for more papers by this author Heng Zhang Department of Histology and Embryology, Xiang Ya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China Search for more papers by this author Yongxiang Zhao National Center for International Research of Biological Targeting Diagnosis and Therapy (Guangxi Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis and Therapy Research), Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China Search for more papers by this author Kaiguang Zhang Corresponding Author [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-9462-6335 Department of Digestive Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Anhui Provincial Hospital, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui, China Search for more papers by this author Xuehui Hong Corresponding Author [email protected] [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-8853-7384 Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Zhiyong Zhang Corresponding Author [email protected] [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-4061-7374 The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Guangxi Neurological Diseases Clinical Research Center, Guilin, Guangxi, China Department of Surgery, Robert-Wood-Johnson Medical School University Hospital, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Search for more papers by this author Xing Feng orcid.org/0000-0001-8226-3389 The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Guangxi Neurological Diseases Clinical Research Center, Guilin, Guangxi, China Department of Immuobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA Search for more papers by this author Dong Ma Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China Search for more papers by this author Jiabao Zhao Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Yongxi Song Department of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China Search for more papers by this author Yuekun Zhu Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Search for more papers by this author Qingxin Zhou Department of Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Search for more papers by this author Fei Ma Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China Search for more papers by this author Xing Liu Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China Search for more papers by this author Mengya Zhong Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Yu Liu Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Yubo Xiong Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Xingfeng Qiu Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Zhen Zhang Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China Search for more papers by this author Heng Zhang Department of Histology and Embryology, Xiang Ya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China Search for more papers by this author Yongxiang Zhao National Center for International Research of Biological Targeting Diagnosis and Therapy (Guangxi Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis and Therapy Research), Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China Search for more papers by this author Kaiguang Zhang Corresponding Author [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-9462-6335 Department of Digestive Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Anhui Provincial Hospital, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui, China Search for more papers by this author Xuehui Hong Corresponding Author [email protected] [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-8853-7384 Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China Search for more papers by this author Zhiyong Zhang Corresponding Author [email protected] [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-4061-7374 The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Guangxi Neurological Diseases Clinical Research Center, Guilin, Guangxi, China Department of Surgery, Robert-Wood-Johnson Medical School University Hospital, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA Search for more papers by this author Author Information Xing Feng1,2,‡, Dong Ma3,‡, Jiabao Zhao4,‡, Yongxi Song5,‡, Yuekun Zhu6,7, Qingxin Zhou8, Fei Ma9, Xing Liu10, Mengya Zhong4, Yu Liu4, Yubo Xiong4, Xingfeng Qiu4, Zhen Zhang11, Heng Zhang12, Yongxiang Zhao13, Kaiguang Zhang *,14, Xuehui Hong *,*,4,‡ and Zhiyong Zhang *,*,1,15,‡ 1The Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guangxi Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Guangxi Neurological Diseases Clinical Research Center, Guilin, Guangxi, China 2Department of Immuobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA 3Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China 4Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China 5Department of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China 6Medical Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 7Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China 8Department of Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China 9Department of General Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China 10Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China 11Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China 12Department of Histology and Embryology, Xiang Ya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China 13National Center for International Research of Biological Targeting Diagnosis and Therapy (Guangxi Key Laboratory of Biological Targeting Diagnosis and Therapy Research), Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China 14Department of Digestive Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Anhui Provincial Hospital, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui, China 15Department of Surgery, Robert-Wood-Johnson Medical School University Hospital, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA ‡These authors contributed equally to this work ‡These authors contributed equally to this work as senior authors *Corresponding author. Tel: +86 551 62283114; Fax: +86 551 62283114; E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author. Tel: +86 592 2993182; Fax: +86 592 2993182; E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] *Corresponding author. Tel: +1 732 2356853; Fax: +1 732 2356853; E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected] EMBO J (2020)39:e102541https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2019102541 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. Peer ReviewDownload a summary of the editorial decision process including editorial decision letters, reviewer comments and author responses to feedback. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info Abstract UHMK1 is a nuclear serine/threonine kinase recently implicated in carcinogenesis. However, the functions and action mechanisms of UHMK1 in the pathogenesis of human gastric cancer (GC) are unclear. Here, we observed that UHMK1 was markedly upregulated in GC. UHMK1 silencing strongly inhibited GC aggressiveness. Interestingly, UHMK1-induced GC progression was mediated primarily via enhancing de novo purine synthesis because inhibiting purine synthesis reversed the effects of UHMK1 overexpression. Mechanistically, UHMK1 activated ATF4, an important transcription factor in nucleotide synthesis, by phosphorylating NCOA3 at Ser (S) 1062 and Thr (T) 1067. This event significantly enhanced the binding of NCOA3 to ATF4 and the expression of purine metabolism-associated target genes. Conversely, deficient phosphorylation of NCOA3 at S1062/T1067 significantly abrogated the function of UHMK1 in GC development. Clinically, Helicobacter pylori and GC-associated UHMK1 mutation induced NCOA3-S1062/T1067 phosphorylation and enhanced the activity of ATF4 and UHMK1. Importantly, the level of UHMK1 was significantly correlated with the level of phospho-NCOA3 (S1062/T1067) in human GC specimens. Collectively, these results show that the UHMK1-activated de novo purine synthesis pathway significantly promotes GC development. Synopsis This study delineates a new role for the nuclear serine/threonine kinase UHMK1 as driver of gastric cancer (GC) via regulating purine metabolism and NCOA3/ATF4-mediated gene expression control. Levels of UHMK1 and NCOA3 phosphorylation are promising stratifiers for patient outcome. UHMK1 expression is significantly upregulated in GC and correlates with poor clinical outcome. UHMK1 directly phosphorylates NCOA3 at Ser1062 and Thr1067 residues. NCOA3-S1062/T1067 phosphorylation promotes ATF4 binding, expression of purine metabolic target genes, and GC progression. Helicobacter pylori infection and GC-related UHMK1 mutation (M134T and T217K) enhance NCOA3-S1062/T1067 phosphorylation, activity of ATF4 and UHMK1. Introduction Gastric cancer (GC) has been indicated to be one of the deadliest malignancies. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, dietary habits, and other environmental risk agents contribute greatly to GC development (Wroblewski et al, 2010). Although surgical resection is a primary therapeutic option for GC patients, the 5-year survival rate remains approximately 30.6% but is only 5.2% for patients with advanced stages (Yusefi et al, 2018). Therefore, a better understanding of molecular aberrations involved in GC pathogenesis is necessary to improve the clinical outcomes of GC patients. U2AF homology motif kinase 1 (UHMK1) is a ubiquitously expressed nuclear serine (Ser, S)/threonine (Thr, T) kinase (Francone et al, 2010). It was initially identified to regulate the function of stathmin (Barbutti et al, 2017). Since then, UHMK1 has been indicated to bind a range of proteins, such as eEF1A, FAM64, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (CDKI), p27KIP1, SF3b155, and CPEB1, suggesting the varied roles of UHMK1 in different cellular processes (Manceau et al, 2008; Cambray et al, 2009). Although UHMK1 dysregulation or mutation has been recently indicated to be a high-penetrant factor in different types of human tumors, such as pancreatic and ovarian cancer (Katchman et al, 2017; Grant et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2018), its effect and action mechanisms in most cancers including GC still were uncovered. Tumor cells reprogram glucose metabolism by switching from oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) to a process termed the Warburg effect (Song et al, 2014). However, emerging evidence indicates that dysregulated purine metabolism is implicated in tumors (Nishimura et al, 2019). This finding is not surprising, because many metabolites from the Warburg effect or pentose phosphate pathway (PPP) are essential carbon sources for purine biosynthesis (Hong et al, 2014). Several kinases and transcription factors (TFs), for example, mechanistic target of rapamycin kinase (mTOR), activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4), microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF), and c-Myc, dictate cancer-dependent purine biosynthesis (Ben-Sahra et al, 2016; Karigane et al, 2016). We recently reported that dual-specificity tyrosine-(Y)-phosphorylation-regulated kinase 3 (Dyrk3) inhibited liver cancer by downregulating purine synthesis (Ma et al, 2019). However, the effect of purine metabolism on GC is not clear. Herein, by analyzing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Oncomine database, we found that genomic DNA of UHMK1 was frequently amplified in GC. Therefore, we further investigated the role and mechanism of UHMK1 in GC. We found that upregulation of UHMK1 suggested poor prognosis of GC patients. We demonstrated that UHMK1 functioned as an oncogene mainly by promoting the purine synthesis pathway in GC. Therefore, UHMK1-enhanced nucleotide synthesis might be an important therapeutic target in GC. Results High-level UHMK1 expression is strongly correlated with GC aggressiveness We first examined the functions of UHMK1 in GC by investigating the relative levels of UHMK1 in five paired GC patient tissues and corresponding normal tissues. The amount of UHMK1 was significantly increased in GC tissues compared with control tissues (Fig 1A). In addition, the amount of UHMK1 in most GC cell lines was often higher than that in the GES-1 cell line, a normal gastric epithelial cell line (Fig 1B). Similar results were found in other studies of GC in TCGA and Oncomine datasets (Fig EV1A–F). The tissue array analysis results indicated that compared to normal tissues, GC tissues presented increased expression levels of UHMK1 (Fig 1C) and that the percentage of cells with UHMK1 expression in patients with stage I, II, III, and IV GC was 18.2, 36.4, 69, and 100, respectively (Fig 1D), further implying that the level of UHMK1 is strongly correlated with GC malignancy. Analysis of 100 patients with GC confirmed that the level of UHMK1 was strongly associated with tumor status, stage, and lymph node metastasis (Fig 1E and Appendix Table S1). Kaplan–Meier analysis of two independent cohorts indicated that GC patients with higher amounts of UHMK1 presented shorter disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) times (Figs 1F and EV1G and H). Multivariate analyses identified UHMK1 as an independent prognostic factor in GC (Appendix Table S2). Collectively, our data reveal that UHMK1 may promote the pathogenesis of GC. Figure 1. High expression of UHMK1 predicts poor prognosis of GC patients A. UHMK1 levels in tumor tissues (T) and corresponding nontumor tissues (N) from five GC patients were analyzed using Western blotting and qRT–PCR. The relative mRNA expression of UHMK1 was presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Pairwise two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. B. Immunoblotting and qRT–PCR were used to measure the levels of UHMK1 in GES-1 and GC cell lines. The relative mRNA expression of UHMK1 was presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Pairwise two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. C. IHC analysis of UHMK1 expression in a GC patient tissue array (n = 102). Representative images are shown. Scale bars = 100 μm. D. The IHC signals were scored using the Allred score as described in Material and Methods. Data were shown as mean ± standard deviation from three independent experiments. E. UHMK1 expression in 100 GC patients was analyzed based on the following parameters: tumor stage, tumor status, and lymph node invasion status. Fisher's test was applied to calculate the exact P value. F. Patients with GC were stratified by the UHMK1 level (n = 100); OS and DFS were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Data information: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Download figure Download PowerPoint Click here to expand this figure. Figure EV1. TCGA and Oncomine analysis of UHMK1 expression in GC patients A. TCGA analyzing the levels of UHMK1 in GC patients. *P < 0.05. The central line stands for the median expression of UHMK1. Upper line stands for upper limit (Upper quartile +1.5 interquartile range). Lower line stands for lower limit (lower quartile –1.5 interquartile range). B–F. Analysis of UHMK1 expression from Oncomine database. The central line stands for the median expression of UHMK1. Upper line stands for upper limit (Upper quartile +1.5 interquartile range). Lower line stands for lower limit (lower quartile –1.5 interquartile range) (three biological replicates). G, H. Kaplan–Meier analysis from the second independent cohort of GC patients indicated that patients with higher levels of UHMK1 had shorter OS (G) and DFS (H). Survival curves were plotted according to Kaplan–Meier method, with the log-rank test applied for comparison. Download figure Download PowerPoint UHMK1 knockdown strongly inhibits the proliferation and invasion of GC cells, possibly via metabolic pathway reprogramming To elucidate the functions of UHMK1 in GC, three lentivirus-mediated UHMK1-specific short hairpin RNAs (shRNAs) were transfected to knock down endogenous UHMK1 in two GC cell lines. shUHMK1-#1 and shUHMK1-#2, with high inhibition rates, were selected for further experiments (Fig 2A). UHMK1 deficiency significantly reduced GC cell proliferation, colony formation, migration, and invasion relative to the corresponding levels in negative control cells (Figs 2B and C, and EV2A–F). However, reintroduction of a shRNA-resistant UHMK1 construct, UHMK1Δ, significantly reversed these phenotypes in SGC7901-shUHMK1-#1 or MGC803-shUHMK1-#1 cells (Figs 2B and C, and EV2A–F). Consistent with this result, UHMK1 overexpression in BGC823 and HGC27 cells markedly promoted their proliferative and invasive abilities (Fig EV2G–M). Figure 2. UHMK1 knockdown strongly suppresses the proliferative and invasive abilities of GC cells, possibly via metabolic pathway reprogramming A–C. (A) GC cells (SGC7901 and MGC803) were transfected with (A) shUHMK1-#1, shUHMK1-#2, shUHMK1-#3, or control shRNA lentiviral vector or (B) with a shRNA-resistant expression construct, UHMK1Δ. Western blotting was used to measure the levels of UHMK1. NIH ImageJ software was used to quantify the band intensity. Western blotting assay was conducted for three replicates. (B and C) SGC7901 cells were transfected with or without shUHMK1-#1 or the shRNA-resistant expression construct UHMK1Δ. CCK-8 and colony formation assays were conducted. Scale bars = 5 mm. D, E. The volumes of subcutaneous gastric tumors derived from SGC7901 cells in NOD/SCID mice were determined at different time points. Tumors and representative bioluminescence images are also shown. UHMK1 silencing in the mouse model was confirmed by Western blotting (three biological replicates). Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from shcontrol and shUHMK1-#1 mice (n = 10 mice/group). Unpaired two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. Scale bars = 1 cm. F, G. UHMK1 silencing (F) and overexpression (G) affected GC cell abdominal metastasis. The quantitative number of metastatic nodules (left panel) in nude mice (n = 10 mice/group). Representative images of abdominal metastases are also shown (right panel). Scale bars = 1 cm. H. Heatmap of the top 500 genes upregulated in GC patients with high UHMK1 expression. I. Gene ontology enrichment analysis was used to analyze the top 20 enriched biological processes among GC patients with high UHMK1 expression. Data information: **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, # marked no significance. Download figure Download PowerPoint Click here to expand this figure. Figure EV2. UHMK1 knockdown strongly suppresses GC cell proliferation and invasion A, B. SGC7901 cells were infected with or without shUHMK1-#1, or a shRNA-resistant expression construct, UHMK1Δ. We performed Transwell assays to measure GC cell migration and invasion, respectively. (Left panel) The quantitative number of migrated or invaded cells in shcontrol, shUHMK1-#1, shUHMK1-#1+Vector, and shUHMK1-#1+UHMK1Δ group. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. (Right panel) Representative images of migrated or invaded cells in each group are shown. Scale bars = 100 μm. C. MGC803 cells were transfected with or without shUHMK1-#1, or UHMK1Δ. CCK-8 assay was conducted to explore the biological function of UHMK1 on cell growth. The growth rate was evaluated from Day 1 to Day 6. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. D–F. MGC803 cells were transfected with or without shUHMK1-#1 or UHMK1Δ. Colony formation and Transwell assays were used to measure GC cell proliferation, invasion, and migration, respectively. (Left panel) The quantitative number of colonies, migrated or invaded cells in shcontrol, shUHMK1-#1, shUHMK1-#1+Vector, and shUHMK1-#1+UHMK1Δ group. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. (Right panel) Representative images of colonies, migrated or invaded cells in each group are shown. Scale bars = 100 μm. G. Western blotting was performed to analyze UHMK1 expression in BGC823 cells transfected with or without UHMK1. CCK-8 assay was conducted to explore the biological function of UHMK1 on cell growth. The growth rate was evaluated from Day 1 to Day 6. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. H, I. BGC823 cells were transfected with or without UHMK1. Colony formation and Transwell assays were used to measure GC cell proliferation, invasion, and migration, respectively. (Left panel) The quantitative number of colonies, migrated or invaded cells in Vector and UHMK1 group. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. (Right panel) Representative images of colonies, migrated or invaded cells in each group are shown. Scale bars = 100 μm. J. Western blotting was performed to analyze UHMK1 expression in HGC27 cells transfected with or without UHMK1. CCK-8 assay was conducted to explore the biological function of UHMK1 on cell growth. The growth rate was evaluated from Day 1 to Day 6. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. K–M. HGC27 cells were transfected with or without UHMK1. Colony formation and Transwell assays were used to measure GC cell proliferation, invasion, and migration, respectively. (Left panel) The quantitative number of colonies, migrated or invaded cells in Vector and UHMK1 group. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. (Right panel) Representative images of colonies, migrated or invaded cells in each group are shown. Scale bars = 100 μm. N. NOD/SCID mice (n = 10 per group) were injected subcutaneously with 1.5 × 106 BGC823-vector and BGC823-UHMK1 into opposite flanks. At indicated time points, the xenograft tumors were collected and presented. Scale bars = 5 mm. Data information: Unpaired two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, # marked no significance. Download figure Download PowerPoint In vivo, knockdown of UHMK1 significantly decreased GC tumorigenesis and the number of abdominal metastatic nodules compared to these parameters in control mice (Fig 2D–F). However, UHMK1 overexpression significantly promoted GC growth and increased the number of metastatic nodules (Figs EV2N and 2G). To further uncover the function of UHMK1 in GC, we assessed the transcriptomes of GC patients in TCGA with varying levels of UHMK1 expression. And the top 500 differentially expressed genes were analyzed in UHMK1high versus UHMK1low patients (Fig 2H and Appendix Table S3). Gene ontology enrichment analysis indicated that high UHMK1 expression in GC patients might be associated mainly with tumor metabolism (Fig 2I). In summary, UHMK1 upregulation significantly promotes GC growth and metastasis possibly via metabolic pathway reprogramming in tumors. UHMK1 upregulation promotes the invasion and proliferation of GC cells by promoting the de novo purine synthesis pathway To examine whether UHMK1 reprograms GC-associated metabolic pathways, mass spectrometry (MS) was performed to assemble the collect metabolic profiles of SGC7901 cells with or without UHMK1 knockdown. Interestingly, UHMK1 silencing significantly reduced the intracellular pools of purine intermediates and a moderate decrease in pyrimidine metabolites (Appendix Table S4 and Fig 3A and B). Thus, silencing UHMK1 in GC cells primarily inhibits purine biosynthesis. Figure 3. UHMK1 upregulation significantly increases the proliferative and invasive abilities of GC cells by reprogramming purine metabolism A. Schematic representation of the main metabolic pathways. B. LC-MS/MS was used to examine the metabolites in SGC7901 cells with or without UHMK1 knockdown. The data are shown in the heatmap. C. (Upper panel) LC-MS/MS analysis was performed to measure 15N-glutamine-labeled purine synthesis intermediates in BGC823 cells transfected with or without the WT-UHMK1 or UHMK1-K54R constructs. (Lower panel) LC-MS/MS was used to analyze metabolites labeled with 13C-glycine in BGC823 cells transfected with or without the WT-UHMK1 or UHMK1-K54R constructs (three biological replicates). D. RNA and DNA with incorporated 14C-glycine in BGC823 cells transfected with or without the WT-UHMK1 or UHMK1-K54R constructs were examined using LC-MS/MS (three biological replicates). E. qRT–PCR assays were used to analyze the effects of WT-UHMK1 or UHMK1-K54R on the genes controlling purine metabolism. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Unpaired two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. F. UHMK1 silencing significantly decreased SGC7901 cell proliferation, while ATIC overexpression or purine supplementation markedly reversed this inhibition. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Unpaired two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. G. Treatment with the ATIC inhibitor significantly reversed the proliferation of BGC823 cells induced by UHMK1 overexpression. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation from three replicates. Unpaired two-tailed statistical significance was assessed by Student's t-test. Data information: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, # marked no significance. Download figure Download PowerPoint We then used stable isotope-labeled glutamine (amide-15N) to investigate the effect of UHMK1 on purine metabolism (Dayie & Thakur, 2010). Overexpression of wild-type (WT) UHMK1 but not the kinase-dead UHMK1-K54R mutant in BGC823 cells obviously increased the amounts of 15N-purine intermediates (IMP, AMP, and GMP) (Fig 3C upper panel), suggesting that the kinase activity o

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

A Case of Congenital Human Cytomegalovirus Infection with Placental and Pulmonary Calcification Despite Presence of Intrauterine IgG

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

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

The Concentrated Antibody from Convalescent Plasma Balanced the Dysfunctional Immune Responses in Patients with Critical COVID‐19

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

Expert Consensus on Perioperative Medications During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Lesions (2015, Suzhou, China)

Resveratrol Inhibits the Replication of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (sars‐cov‐2) in Cultured Vero Cells

Persistent Viral Activity, Cytokine Storm, and Lung Fibrosis in a Case of Severe COVID‐19

Activating Tumor‐Selective Liquid Metal Nanomedicine Through Galvanic Replacement (adv. Mater. 5/2024)

Withdrawal: Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Upgraded “2C3L” Versus PVI Approach for Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: PROMPT‐AF Trial Design

SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is China's key pillar of COVID-19 containment

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

The Monoamine Oxidase-B Inhibitor Selegiline Does Not Affect 18 F-Florzolotau Uptake in Patients with Progressive Supranuclear Palsy: A Longitudinal Case Series.

Complete Genome Sequences of the SARS-CoV: the BJ Group (Iso-

UHMK 1 Promotes Gastric Cancer Progression Through Reprogramming Nucleotide Metabolism

OEM China Water Storage Bladder Tanks OEM/ODM Quotes - Rongda

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Chronic Urticaria in China: A Nationwide Cross‐sectional Study

Associations of Tenascin C with Th2 Response, Edema Degree, and Disease Severity in Patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps.

The Study Design and Methodology of Antibiotic Duration in Hematological Patients with Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Bloodstream Infection.

Reporting Assessment of Multicenter Clinical Trial Protocols: A Cross-Sectional Study

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