$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
General considerations
The protocol (Figure 1) is presented as a set of options to highlight that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' method for working with cyanobacterial extracellular vesicles. Interested researchers can utilize the sections of this protocol that are compatible and appropriate for their particular model organism, experimental questions/goals, and equipment availability. All vesicle isolation approaches involve trade-offs and will unavoidably result in some degree of bias. While one should seek to minimize this whenever possible, the most crucial consideration is to ensure that the detailed methodology used is reported according to appropriate MISEV (Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles) guidelines36.
Culture growth
Cyanobacterial cultures can be readily obtained from one of the many culture collections available worldwide. A few examples are the Roscoff Culture Collection (Station Biologique de Roscoff, France), the Pasteur Culture Collection (Institute Pasteur, Paris, France), and the Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Marine Algae and Microbiota (NCMA, Maine, USA). The cyanobacterial strain of choice must be cultivated in the appropriate medium and environmental conditions, varying significantly among different strains. A list of commonly used media for cyanobacterial cultivation can be found at culture collection websites or other publications37,38,39.
Working with cyanobacterial extracellular vesicles presents some unique challenges compared with the methodologies reported for many typical model laboratory heterotrophs. Cyanobacterial cultures have vesicle concentrations of orders of magnitude lower than those found in other microbes such as Escherichia coli14,16,40. These differences, presumably arising from lower cell densities and/or vesicle production rates, mean that relatively large cultures (~1-20 L or more) may be required to yield sufficient material for bulk analyses. Thus, researchers are encouraged to test vesicle yields from smaller-scale cultures to determine how much material will be necessary to achieve their desired end goals. The importance of establishing whether the media used for the experiment has a detectable particulate background also needs to be stressed before beginning any experiment, as that material can potentially confound vesicle population quantification, reduce the sensitivity of vesicle concentration/size measurements, or contaminate the final vesicle preparations.
Another challenge for the field is that not all cyanobacteria grow well, or at all, in pure culture. Until rendered axenic, interpretations of physical vesicle characteristics, production rates, or contents cannot necessarily lead to clear conclusions about vesicles produced by any one strain in the community. Researchers are also advised to consider what other types of particles could be present and potentially confused with vesicles by specific nanoparticle analysis tools, which cannot necessarily discriminate between different particle types. For instance, it may be essential to verify that the strain being used lacks a prophage, either via genome sequencing, induction assays, or other means or does not release other types of particulate matter. In our experience, most cyanobacterial vesicles are <0.2 µm in diameter, but when looking at a new strain or growth condition, one should confirm whether using a 0.45 µm pore-size filter alters the size distribution of purified particles.
Many aspects of culture conditions can influence vesicle production and its contents41,42. Thus, the physical and chemical conditions used for culture growth (including light irradiance, temperature, and media composition) need to be documented and controlled to the degree possible to ensure the reproducibility of results. Any chemical analysis of vesicle contents must account for background composition, particularly when carrying out '-omics' style high-throughput analyses. This can be especially critical when using undefined media, such as those based on a natural seawater background or supplemented with yeast extract or tryptone. Using a defined growth medium may be preferable depending on the experimental goals.
Researchers need to carefully monitor culture growth dynamics at regular intervals to ensure that they know where in the growth phase a given batch culture is and not just collect samples after an arbitrary amount of time. Vesicle composition can vary across growth phases, particularly between exponential and stationary phases41,42. For instance, at least some fraction of vesicles sampled in the stationary phase may arise from a different cellular mechanism, such as cell lysis, that will not occur during exponential growth. While this may still be of great biological interest, it is essential to know the sample. If a cyanobacterial culture reaches the desired growth phase at a time when it is not possible to proceed directly to sample concentration, separating the cells from the <0.2 µm fraction immediately (with centrifugation and/or direct 0.2 µm filtration), and then storing the cell-free filtrate at 4 °C is recommended. The material can be stored in this way for days with little to no noticeable impact on the concentration or size distribution of vesicles.
Vesicle purifications
The frequent need to isolate vesicles from significant volume cultures is vital in the cyanobacterial vesicle isolation workflow. When working with larger volumes of material, the vesicles will need to be concentrated before downstream separation workflows. Concentrators (tangential flow filter membranes or centrifugal columns) with a nominal molecular weight limit of 100 kDa are generally advised, as they allow separation from soluble material with low molecular weight while keeping concentration times reasonable, but 30 kDa filters are also frequently used with success. While several non-ultracentrifugation-based methods of purifying vesicles (e.g., size exclusion chromatography, microfluidic-based systems, affinity-capture techniques, and precipitation-based approaches) are becoming popular in the extracellular vesicle field, in our experience, these approaches can result in decreased yields and are typically incompatible with the culture volumes needed.
Researchers need to consider the composition of the iodixanol background and the wash/resuspension buffers used during vesicle purification to ensure that they are compatible with the desired downstream applications. In many cases, the final vesicle sample can be resuspended in growth media or a defined buffer comparable in composition to the growth medium (e.g., natural vs. artificial seawater). However, this may not be possible with marine cyanobacterial vesicles, which will require further experimental manipulation for analysis, as high salt concentrations similar to seawater levels can inhibit many enzymatic reactions. In such cases, standard laboratory buffers such as 0.2 µm filtered, 1x PBS typically work well for maintaining the stability of marine cyanobacterial vesicles and can be more compatible with downstream experimental processes.
Density gradient purification can be considered optional depending on the experimental goals and culture composition but is strongly recommended for producing a more rigorously pure and reproducible sample. EV populations are heterogeneous and can be found across a range of buoyant densities, which further vary by strain, growth conditions, and other factors4,5,6. The densities listed above represent those typically found for vesicles from cyanobacterial cultures and field samples in iodixanol, but results in other strains may vary. Other density gradient materials such as sucrose and CsCl can be utilized for vesicles, but they will migrate to different buoyant densities in these backgrounds. Different gradient media backgrounds can bias the recovery of lipid-enclosed viruses43 and might potentially influence the recovery of vesicles from different strains.
Vesicles can be lost at multiple points through the vesicle isolation, and gradient purification process described here, reducing yields and increasing the amount of starting material needed to achieve a given final vesicle yield for downstream applications. Particular care should be taken when working with vesicle pellets following ultracentrifugation. While some cyanobacterial vesicles can have carotenoids or other compounds which may lend vesicle samples some amount of pigmentation (Figure 2), depending on the strain or amount of material, it is not necessarily expected to be able to visualize the vesicles pellet directly. Be aware of where the pellet is expected to be given the type of centrifuge rotor used. When possible, purified vesicle samples are suggested to be examined by electron microscopy to verify the composition of the final material recovered.
The impact of storage conditions on vesicles and their contents remains an open question. Though it is found that the storage does not have a notable effect on cyanobacterial vesicle size or concentration14, the functionality of isolated vesicle preparations may change over time44. While freeze/thaw cycles should be avoided whenever possible, the impact of freezing samples on overall vesicle numbers and sizes appears to be minimal. One should be aware of the potential for freeze-thaw cycles to influence the composition of vesicle contents, such as the length of vesicle-associated nucleic acids or the stability of proteins.
Vesicles from field samples
Current methods for isolating extracellular vesicles from natural aquatic environments are conceptually and operationally similar to those described here for large-volume cultures. Still, they can require even greater volumes of material. Such field samples can involve collecting, filtration, and concentration of hundreds to thousands of liters of water to obtain sufficient material for analysis. Depending on the turbidity of the sample being used, incorporation of one or more pre-filtration steps before the 0.2 µm filter may be needed. The specific TFF device used should be appropriate for working with such large volumes in a reasonable amount of time (ideally in the order of hours) and without putting excessive pressure on the sample. In practice, this often involves using a much greater total surface area than might be applied to culture-based samples, as well as larger-diameter tubing to facilitate increased flow rates. This increased filter surface area will likely lead to a marginal increase in particle losses compared to smaller TFF arrangements and a larger final volume of concentrate; however, these concerns must be balanced with considerations of total processing time. For situations such as an extended oceanographic cruise where samples will not return to a lab for many days post-sampling, we recommend carrying out initial 0.2 µm filtration and TFF steps in the field. This smaller volume of concentrated material can then be stored at 4 °C or -80 °C on board (depending on availability and downstream analytical considerations) until it is returned to the lab for final processing.
Isolation and separation of extracellular vesicles from other small particles, both organic and inorganic, can be challenging, and methods for separating different particles are not yet perfect. For instance, iodixanol density gradients may not readily separate all classes of vesicles and viruses present in a given sample. As the types of confounding particles, and their physical properties, will vary between sampling sites, it is currently impossible to provide a protocol that will robustly partition all classes of small aquatic particles. Trial and error are essential, and experimentation with the iodixanol range used in the gradient and ultracentrifugation conditions will be required to maximize the separation; a collection of smaller volume, more finely resolved density fractions may also be required. Depending on the context, using CsCl gradients instead of iodixanol may help separate environmental particles45. Still, the change in osmotic conditions could lead to biases in the final recovered products, as discussed above.
Vesicle characterization
Nanoparticle analysis instruments are not yet routinely available in microbiology laboratory settings but are becoming increasingly available. All methodologies have pros and cons, and we make no specific endorsement of one platform as being better than all others for cyanobacterial vesicle work; indeed, all have particular trade-offs concerning costs, resolution, ease of use, detection limits, compatibility with different growth media/buffer backgrounds, and data reproducibility. In addition to instruments based on nanoparticle tracking analysis described above, other approaches, including nanoflow cytometry, microfluidic resistive pulse sensing, and tunable resistive pulse sensing, can be applied46,47. Users should be careful to learn the details of their available instrumentation and verify that it works well with their system, as we have encountered difficulties when using some platforms with seawater-based media. We encourage the field to move toward quantitative characterization of vesicle size, concentrations, and production rates. Measuring vesicle concentrations on a fundamental particle per mL basis, and not in terms of protein content or other metrics, will allow for the integration of vesicles into more quantitative frameworks and enable intercomparisons among strains and conditions. Further efforts to improve the ability to calibrate concentration measurements for <100nm particles are needed.
The fact that vesicle production rate measurements are done directly from 0.2 µm filtered culture supernatant to minimize particle losses would be associated with other purification steps described above. However, this does mean that the approach does not necessarily discriminate between actual extracellular vesicles and other small particles found in the cultures. Only counting particles within specific size ranges (e.g., 50-250 nm diameter) may help exclude some outliers, but visual confirmation that pelleted <0.2 µm culture contents appear to be membrane-bound vesicles (by TEM or other approaches) is needed to be able to specifically claim that one is measuring the production of vesicles as opposed to the production of vesicle-like particles.
An essential factor in vesicle characterization is to ensure that the vesicle sample is being analyzed in the appropriate linear sensitivity range of the nanoparticle analysis device. When a sample is too concentrated, it is straightforward to dilute that material with a clean buffer and re-analyze it. On the other hand, the relatively low cell and/or vesicle density of some cyanobacterial cultures can sometimes yield vesicle preparations that are below some instruments' detection limits. In cases where this occurs with bulk vesicle purifications, one can consider growing larger volume cultures, re-pelleting and resuspending the final material in a smaller volume, or evaluating whether there is a step in the isolation process where excessive losses are occurring and could be mitigated. When measuring vesicle production rates, the fixes are not necessarily so straightforward. Samples can be concentrated if necessary, but the first one should see whether adjustments to the media could result in higher cell densities or whether sufficiently concentrated samples could be obtained from later time points during the exponential phase where concentrations will be higher.
Limitations
As with any protocol, vesicle isolation using these approaches has clear limitations. These approaches do not rely on their guarantee that an utterly pure preparation of vesicles will be isolated. Both cultures and field samples may contain other materials, which migrate similarly to vesicles in density gradients. Still, at a minimum, these types of additional purification methodologies are essential for ensuring rigor and reproducibility of vesicle analysis. While we describe vesicle isolation approaches in the context of cyanobacteria, cultures of many other microbes will also contain vesicles at comparatively low concentrations, and the procedures described here should be generally applicable. It is expected that these methods will serve not as a permanent protocol but instead as a starting point for spurring future advancements in working with extracellular vesicles from diverse microbes. Future efforts are required to merge these methods with other approaches such as size exclusion columns or asymmetric field flow fractionation to improve the discrimination and separation of different categories of small particles from cultures and environmental samples. We are also hopeful that these techniques can continue to evolve alongside improvements in nanoparticle characterization technologies to improve the ability to examine heterogeneity within vesicle populations, their contents, and their exact functional roles in the environment.