An Analysis of Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles for Preclinical Use

• Published in: ACS nano 2020-08, Vol.14 (8), p.9728-9743
• Main Authors: Tieu, Alvin, Lalu, Manoj M, Slobodian, Mitchell, Gnyra, Catherine, Fergusson, Dean A, Montroy, Joshua, Burger, Dylan, Stewart, Duncan J, Allan, David S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Extracellular Vesicles - metabolism; Inflammation - metabolism; Mesenchymal Stem Cells; Tissue Distribution
• ISSN: 1936-0851; 1936-086X
• DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c01363

Mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) can reduce inflammation, promote healing, and improve organ function, thereby providing a potential “cell-free” therapy. Prior to clinical translation, it is critical to synthesize existing evidence on preclinical methods and efficacy. To address these issues, we used gold standard systematic review methodology to consolidate information from all published animal studies investigating MSC-EVs as an intervention. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase identified 206 studies. Data were extracted in duplicate for methodology, experimental design, interventional traits, modifications, and outcomes. MSC-EVs were used to treat a variety of diseases and demonstrated benefits in 97% of studies. Adverse effects were reported in only three studies, two demonstrating tumor growth. A quarter of articles modified EVs to enhance efficacy, with 72% leading to markedly improved outcomes as compared to unmodified EVs. However, several key methodological concerns were evident. Only 60% of studies used nomenclature consistent with the size definitions of EVs. Ultracentrifugation (70%) and isolation kits (23%) were the most common isolation techniques with noted differences in yield and purity. EVs were inconsistently dosed by protein (68%) or particle concentration (16%). Two-thirds of studies administered xenogeneic EVs, suggesting immunocompatibility. Less than 25% of studies assessed EV biodistribution. Approaches for determining size, protein markers, and morphology were highly heterogeneous, with only 12 and 4 studies meeting the MISEV 2014 and 2018 recommendations, respectively. Knowledge gaps identified from this systematic review highlight important opportunities to improve preclinical design and methodology in the rapidly growing field of EV therapeutics.