A “torn bag mechanism” of small extracellular vesicle release via limiting membrane rupture of en bloc released amphisomes (amphiectosomes)

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors' research group had previously demonstrated the release of large multivesicular body-like structures by human colorectal cancer cells. This manuscript expands on their findings, revealing that this phenomenon is not exclusive to colorectal cancer cells but is also observed in various other cell types, including different cultured cell lines, as well as cells in the mouse kidney and liver. Furthermore, the authors argue that these large multivesicular body-like structures originate from intracellular amphisomes, which they term "amphiectosomes." These amphiectosomes release their intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) through a "torn-bag mechanism." Finally, the authors demonstrate that the ILVs of amphiectosomes are either LC3B positive or CD63 positive. This distinction implies that the ILVs either originate from amphisomes or multivesicular bodies, respectively.

Strengths:

The manuscript reports a potential origin of extracellular vesicle (EV) biogenesis. The reported observations are intriguing.

Weaknesses:

It is essential to note that the manuscript has issues with experimental designs and lacks consistency in the presented data. Here is a list of the major concerns:

(1) The authors culture the cells in the presence of fetal bovine serum (FBS) in the culture medium. Given that FBS contains a substantial amount of EVs, this raises a significant issue, as it becomes challenging to differentiate between EVs derived from FBS and those released by the cells. This concern extends to all transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images (Figure 1, 2P-S, S5, Figure 4 P-U) and the quantification of EV numbers in Figure 3. The authors need to use an FBS-free cell culture medium.

(2) The data presented in Figure 2 is not convincingly supportive of the authors' conclusion. The authors argue that "...CD81 was present in the plasma membrane-derived limiting membrane (Figures 2B, D, F), while CD63 was only found inside the MV-lEVs (Fig. 2A, C, E)." However, in Figure 2G, there is an observable CD63 signal in the limiting membrane (overlapping with the green signals), and in Figure 2J, CD81 also exhibits overlap with MV-IEVs.

(3) Following up on the previous concern, the authors argue that CD81 and CD63 are exclusively located on the limiting membrane and MV-IEVs, respectively (Figure 2-A-M). However, in lines 104-106, the authors conclude that "The simultaneous presence of CD63, CD81, TSG101, ALIX, and the autophagosome marker LC3B within the MV-lEVs..." This statement indicates that CD63 and CD81 co-localize to the MV-IEVs. The authors need to address this apparent discrepancy and provide an explanation.

(4) The specificity of the antibodies used in Figure 2 should be validated through knockout or knockdown experiments. Several of the antibodies used in this figure detect multiple bands on western blots, raising doubts about their specificity. Verification through additional experimental approaches is essential to ensure the reliability and accuracy of all the immunostaining data in this manuscript.

(5) In Figures 2P-R, the morphology of the MV-IEVs does not resemble those shown in Figures 1-A, H, and D, indicating a notable inconsistency in the data.

(6) There are no loading controls provided for any of the western blot data. Additionally, for Figures 2-S4B, the authors should run the samples from lanes i-iii in a single gel.

(7) In Figure 2-S4, is there co-localization observed between LC3RFP (LC3A?) with other MV-IFV markers? How about LC3B? Does LC3B co-localize with other MV-IFV markers?

(8) The TEM images presented in Figure 2-S5, specifically F, G, H, and I, do not closely resemble the images in Figure 2-S5 K, L, M, N, and O. Despite this dissimilarity, the authors argue that these images depict the same structures. The authors should provide an explanation for this observed discrepancy to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the presented data.

(9) For Figures 3C and 3-S1, the authors should include the images used for EV quantification. Considering the concern regarding potential contamination introduced by FBS (concern 1), it is advisable for the authors to employ an independent method to identify EVs, thereby confirming the reliability of the data presented in these figures.

(10) Do the amphiectosomes released from other cell types as well as cells in mouse kidneys or liver contain LC3B positive and CD63 positive ILVs?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors had previously identified that a colorectal cancer cell line generates small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) via a mechanism where a larger intracellular compartment containing these sEVs is secreted from the surface of the cell and then tears to release its contents. Previous studies have suggested that intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) inside endosomal multivesicular bodies and amphisomes can be secreted by the fusion of the compartment with the plasma membrane. The 'torn bag mechanism' considered in this manuscript is distinctly different because it involves initial budding off of a plasma membrane-enclosed compartment (called the amphiectosome in this manuscript, or MV-lEV). The authors successfully set out to investigate whether this mechanism is common to many cell types and to determine some of the subcellular processes involved.

The strengths of the study are:

(1) The high-quality imaging approaches used, seem to show good examples of the proposed mechanism.

(2) They screen several cell lines for these structures, also search for similar structures in vivo, and show the tearing process by real-time imaging.

(3) Regarding the intracellular mechanisms of ILV production, the authors also try to demonstrate the different stages of amphiectosome production and differently labelled ILVs using immuno-EM.
Several of these techniques are technically challenging to do well, and so these are critical strengths of the manuscript.

The weaknesses are:

(1) Most of the analysis is undertaken with cell lines. In fact, all of the analysis involving the assessment of specific proteins associated with amphiectosomes and ILVs are performed in vitro, so it is unclear whether these processes are really mirrored in vivo. The images shown in vivo only demonstrate putative amphiectosomes in the circulation, which is perhaps surprising if they normally have a short half-life and would need to pass through an endothelium to reach the vessel lumen unless they were secreted by the endothelial cells themselves.

(2) The analysis of the intracellular formation of compartments involved in the secretion process (Figure 2_S5) relies on immuno-EM, which is generally less convincing than high-/super-resolution fluorescence microscopy because the immuno-labelling is inevitably very sporadic and patchy. High-quality EM is challenging for many labs (and seems to be done very well here), but high-/super-resolution fluorescence microscopy techniques are more commonly employed, and the study already shows that these techniques should be applicable to studying the intracellular trafficking processes.

(3) One aspect of the mechanism, which needs some consideration, is what happens to the amphisome membrane, once it has budded off inside the amphiectosome. In the fluorescence images, it seems to be disrupted, but presumably, this must happen after separation from the cell to avoid the release of ILVs inside the cell. There is an additional part of Figure 1 (Figure 1Y onwards), which does not seem to be discussed in the text (and should be), that alludes to amphiectosomes often having a double membrane.

(4) The real-time analysis of the amphiectosome tearing mechanism seemed relatively slow to me (over three minutes), and if this has been observed multiple times, it would be helpful to know if this is typical or whether there is considerable variation.

Overall, I think the authors have been successful in identifying amphiectosomes secreted from multiple cell lines and demonstrating that the ILVs inside them have at least two origins (autophagosome membrane and late endosomal multivesicular body) based on the markers that they carry. The analysis of intracellular compartments producing these structures is rather less convincing and it remains unclear what cells release these structures in vivo.

I think there could be a significant impact on the EV field and consequently on our understanding of cell-cell signalling based on these findings. It will flag the importance of investigating the release of amphiectosomes in other studies, and although the authors do not discuss it, the molecular mechanisms involved in this type of 'ectosomal-style' release will be different from multivesicular compartment fusion to the plasma membrane and should be possible to be manipulated independently. Any experiments that demonstrate this would greatly strengthen the manuscript.

In general, the EV field has struggled to link up analysis of the subcellular biology of sEV secretion and the biochemical/physical analysis of the sEVs themselves, so from that perspective, the manuscript provides a novel angle on this problem.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors describe a novel mode of release of small extracellular vesicles. These small EVs are released via the rupture of the membrane of so-called amphiectosomes that resemble "morphologically" Multivesicular Bodies.

These structures have been initially described by the authors as released by colorectal cancer cells (https://doi.org/10.1080/20013078.2019.1596668). In this manuscript, they provide experiments that allow us to generalize this process to other cells. In brief, amphiectosomes are likely released by ectocytosis of amphisomes that are formed by the fusion of multivesicular endosomes with autophagosomes. The authors propose that their model puts forward the hypothesis that LC3 positive vesicles are formed by "curling" of the autophagosomal membrane which then gives rise to an organelle where both CD63 and LC3 positive small EVs co-exist and would be released then by a budding mechanism at the cell surface that appears similar to the budding of microvesicles /ectosomes. Very correctly the authors make the distinction from migrasomes because these structures appear very similar in morphology.

Strengths:

The findings are interesting despite that it is unclear what would be the functional relevance of such a process and even how it could be induced. It points to a novel mode of release of extracellular vesicles.

Weaknesses:

This reviewer has comments and concerns concerning the interpretation of the data and the proposed model. In addition, in my opinion, some of the results in particular micrographs and immunoblots (even shown as supplementary data) are not of quality to support the conclusions.

Author Response

eLife assessment

The authors present evidence that small extracellular vesicles can be secreted from cells inside larger vesicles that they call amphiectosomes, which then tear to release their small vesicle contents. There are questions and concerns relating to the quality of the data and the in vivo significance of the observations. The findings are potentially important but the data are incomplete and the claims are only partially supported.

We agree that the in vivo significance and details of the molecular background of amphiectosome release remains to be studied further. However, as Reviewer 2 indicated, our data in this Short Report may have a substantial impact on our understanding of EV biogenesis. Therefore, we considered it was important to publish our data as soon as possible because it may significantly impact other EV biogenesis studies.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors' research group had previously demonstrated the release of large multivesicular body-like structures by human colorectal cancer cells. This manuscript expands on their findings, revealing that this phenomenon is not exclusive to colorectal cancer cells but is also observed in various other cell types, including different cultured cell lines, as well as cells in the mouse kidney and liver. Furthermore, the authors argue that these large multivesicular body-like structures originate from intracellular amphisomes, which they term "amphiectosomes." These amphiectosomes release their intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) through a "torn-bag mechanism." Finally, the authors demonstrate that the ILVs of amphiectosomes are either LC3B positive or CD63 positive. This distinction implies that the ILVs either originate from amphisomes or multivesicular bodies, respectively.

Strengths:

The manuscript reports a potential origin of extracellular vesicle (EV) biogenesis. The reported observations are intriguing.

Weaknesses:

It is essential to note that the manuscript has issues with experimental designs and lacks consistency in the presented data. Here is a list of the major concerns:

(1) The authors culture the cells in the presence of fetal bovine serum (FBS) in the culture medium. Given that FBS contains a substantial amount of EVs, this raises a significant issue, as it becomes challenging to differentiate between EVs derived from FBS and those released by the cells. This concern extends to all transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images (Figure 1, 2P-S, S5, Figure 4 P-U) and the quantification of EV numbers in Figure 3. The authors need to use an FBS-free cell culture medium.

(1) Although FBS indeed contains bovine EVs, however, the presence of very large multivesicular EVs (amphiectosomes) that our manuscript focuses on has never been observed and reported. For reported size distributions of EVs in FBS, please find a few relevant references below:

PMID: 29410778, PMID: 33532042, PMID: 30940830 and PMID: 37298194

All the above publications show that the number of lEVs > 350-500 nm is negligible in FBS. The average diameter of MV-lEVs (amphiectosomes) described in our manuscript is around 1.00-1.50 micrometre.

(1) When we demonstrated the TEM of isolated EVs, we consistently used serum- free conditioned medium (Fig2 P-S, Fig2S5 J, O) as described previously (Németh et al 2021, PMID: 34665280).

(2) Our TEM images show cells captured in the process of budding and scission of large multivesicular EVs excluding the possibility that these structures could have originated from FBS.

(3) In addition, in our confocal analysis, we studied Palm-GFP positive, cell-line derived MV-lEVs. Importantly, in these experiments, FBS-derived EVs are non-fluorescent, therefore, the distinction between GFP positive MV-lEVs and FBS-derived EVs was evident.

(4) In addition, culturing cells in FBS-free medium (serum starvation) significantly affects autophagy. Given that in our study, we focused on autophagy related amphiectosome secretion, we intentionally chose to use FBS supplemented medium.

(5) Even though the authors of this manuscript are not familiar with the technological details how FBS is processed before commercialization, it is reasonable to assume that the samples are subjected to sterile filtration (through a 0.22 micron filter) after which MV-lEVs cannot be present in the commercial FBS samples.

(2) The data presented in Figure 2 is not convincingly supportive of the authors' conclusion. The authors argue that "...CD81 was present in the plasma membrane-derived limiting membrane (Figures 2B, D, F), while CD63 was only found inside the MV-lEVs (Fig. 2A, C, E)." However, in Figure 2G, there is an observable CD63 signal in the limiting membrane (overlapping with the green signals), and in Figure 2J, CD81 also exhibits overlap with MV-IEVs.

Both CD63 and CD81 are tetraspanins known to be present both in the membrane of sEVs and in the plasma membrane of cells (for references, please see Uniprot subcellular location maps: https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P08962/entry#subcellular_location https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P60033/entry#subcellular_location). However, according the feedback of the reviewer, for clarity, we will delete the implicated sentence from the text.

(3) Following up on the previous concern, the authors argue that CD81 and CD63 are exclusively located on the limiting membrane and MV-IEVs, respectively (Figure 2-A-M). However, in lines 104-106, the authors conclude that "The simultaneous presence of CD63, CD81, TSG101, ALIX, and the autophagosome marker LC3B within the MV-lEVs..." This statement indicates that CD63 and CD81 co-localize to the MV-IEVs. The authors need to address this apparent discrepancy and provide an explanation.

There must be a misunderstanding because we did not claim or implicate in the text that that “CD81 and CD63 are exclusively located on the limiting membrane and MV-IEVs”. Here we studied co-localization of the above proteins in the case intraluminal vesicles (ILVs). In Fig 2. we did not show any analysis of limiting membrane co-localization.

(4) The specificity of the antibodies used in Figure 2 should be validated through knockout or knockdown experiments. Several of the antibodies used in this figure detect multiple bands on western blots, raising doubts about their specificity. Verification through additional experimental approaches is essential to ensure the reliability and accuracy of all the immunostaining data in this manuscript.

We will consider this suggestion during the revision of the manuscript.

(5) In Figures 2P-R, the morphology of the MV-IEVs does not resemble those shown in Figures 1-A, H, and D, indicating a notable inconsistency in the data.

EM images in Figure2 P-R show sEVs separated from serum-free conditioned media as opposed to MV-lEVs, which were in situ captured in in fixed tissue cultures (Fig1). Therefore, the two EV populations necessarily have different size and structure. Furthermore, Fig. 1 shows images of ultrathin sections while in Figure 2P-R, we used a negative-positive contrasting of intact sEV-s without embedding and sectioning.

(6) There are no loading controls provided for any of the western blot data.

Not even the latest MISEV 2023 guidelines give recommendations for proper loading control for separated EVs in Western blot (MISEV 2023 , DOI: 10.1002/jev2.12404 PMID: 38326288). Here we applied our previously developed method (PMID: 37103858), which in our opinion, is the most reliable approach to be used for sEV Western blotting. For whole cell lysates, we used actin as loading control (Fig3_S2B).

Additionally, for Figures 2-S4B, the authors should run the samples from lanes i-iii in a single gel.

Please note that in Figure 2- S4B, we did run a single gel, and the blot was cut into 4 pieces, which were tested by anti-GFP, anti-RFP, anti-LC3A and anti-LC3B antibodies. Full Western blots are shown in Fig.3_S2 B, and lanes “1”, “2” and “3” correspond to “i”, “ii” and “iii” in Fig.2_S4, respectively.

(7) In Figure 2-S4, is there co-localization observed between LC3RFP (LC3A?) with other MV-IFV markers? How about LC3B? Does LC3B co-localize with other MV-IFV markers?

In the Supplementary figure Figure 2-S4 we showed successful generation of HEK293T-PalmGFP-LC3RFP cell line. In this case we tested the cells, and not the released MV-lEVs. LC3A co-localized with the RFP signal as expected.

(8) The TEM images presented in Figure 2-S5, specifically F, G, H, and I, do not closely resemble the images in Figure 2-S5 K, L, M, N, and O. Despite this dissimilarity, the authors argue that these images depict the same structures. The authors should provide an explanation for this observed discrepancy to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the presented data.

As indicated in Material and Methods, Fig 2_S5 F, G, H and I are conventional TEM images fixed by 4% glutaraldehyde 1% OsO4 2h and embedded into Epon resin with a post contrasting of 3.75% uranyl acetate 10 min and 12 min lead citrate. Samples processed this way have very high structure preservation and better image quality, however, they are not suitable for immune detection. In contrast, Fig.2._S5 K,L,M,N shows immunogold labelling of in situ fixed samples. In this case we used milder fixation (4% PFA, 0.1% glutaraldehyde, postfixed by 0.5% OsO4 30 min) and LR-White hydrophilic resin embedding. This special resin enables immunogold TEM analysis. The sections were exposed to H2O2 and NaBH4 to render the epitopes accessible in the resin. Because of the different applied techniques, the preservation of the structure is not the same. In the case of Fig.2 J, O, separated sEVs were visualised by negative-positive contrast and immunogold labelling as described previously (PMID: 37103858).

(9) For Figures 3C and 3-S1, the authors should include the images used for EV quantification. Considering the concern regarding potential contamination introduced by FBS (concern 1), it is advisable for the authors to employ an independent method to identify EVs, thereby confirming the reliability of the data presented in these figures.

In our revised manuscript, we will provide all the images used for EV quantification in Figure 3C. Given that Figures 3C and 3-S1 show MV-lEVs released by HEK293T-PlamGFP cells, the possible interference by FBS-derived non-fluorescent EVs can be excluded.

(10) Do the amphiectosomes released from other cell types as well as cells in mouse kidneys or liver contain LC3B positive and CD63 positive ILVs?

Based on our confocal microscopic analysis, in addition the HEK293T-PalmGFP cells, HT29 and HepG2 cells also release similar LC3B and CD63 positive MV-lEVs. Preliminary evidence shows MV-lEV secretion by additional cell types.