Administration of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) improves the recovery from acute kidney injury (AKI).The mechanism may involve paracrine factors promoting proliferation of surviving intrinsic epithelial cells, but these factors remain unknown. In the current study, we found that microvesicles derived from human bone marrow MSCs stimulated proliferation in vitro and conferred resistance of tubular epithelial cells to apoptosis. The biologic action of microvesicles required their CD44-and ␤1-integrin-dependent incorporation into tubular cells. In vivo, microvesicles accelerated the morphologic and functional recovery of glycerol-induced AKI in SCID mice by inducing proliferation of tubular cells. The effect of microvesicles on the recovery of AKI was similar to the effect of human MSCs. RNase abolished the aforementioned effects of microvesicles in vitro and in vivo, suggesting RNA-dependent biologic effects. Microarray analysis and quantitative real time PCR of microvesicle-RNA extracts indicate that microvesicles shuttle a specific subset of cellular mRNA, such as mRNAs associated with the mesenchymal phenotype and with control of transcription, proliferation, and immunoregulation. These results suggest that microvesicles derived from MSCs may activate a proliferative program in surviving tubular cells after injury via a horizontal transfer of mRNA.

This review encompasses the most important advances in liver functions and hepatotoxicity and analyzes which mechanisms can be studied in vitro. In a complex architecture of nested, zonated lobules, the liver consists of approximately 80 % hepatocytes and 20 % non-parenchymal cells, the latter being involved in a secondary phase that may dramatically aggravate the initial damage. Hepatotoxicity, as well as hepatic metabolism, is controlled by a set of nuclear receptors (including PXR, CAR, HNF-4α, FXR, LXR, SHP, VDR and PPAR) and signaling pathways. When isolating liver cells, some pathways are activated, e.g., the RAS/MEK/ERK pathway, whereas others are silenced (e.g. HNF-4α), resulting in up- and downregulation of hundreds of genes. An understanding of these changes is crucial for a correct interpretation of in vitro data. The possibilities and limitations of the most useful liver in vitro systems are summarized, including three-dimensional culture techniques, co-cultures with non-parenchymal cells, hepatospheres, precision cut liver slices and the isolated perfused liver. Also discussed is how closely hepatoma, stem cell and iPS cell–derived hepatocyte-like-cells resemble real hepatocytes. Finally, a summary is given of the state of the art of liver in vitro and mathematical modeling systems that are currently used in the pharmaceutical industry with an emphasis on drug metabolism, prediction of clearance, drug interaction, transporter studies and hepatotoxicity. One key message is that despite our enthusiasm for in vitro systems, we must never lose sight of the in vivo situation. Although hepatocytes have been isolated for decades, the hunt for relevant alternative systems has only just begun.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1078-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), such as exosomes and microvesicles, are released by different cell types and participate in physiological and pathophysiological processes. EVs mediate intercellular communication as cell-derived extracellular signalling organelles that transmit specific information from their cell of origin to their target cells. As a result of these properties, EVs of defined cell types may serve as novel tools for various therapeutic approaches, including (a) anti-tumour therapy, (b) pathogen vaccination, (c) immune-modulatory and regenerative therapies and (d) drug delivery. The translation of EVs into clinical therapies requires the categorization of EV-based therapeutics in compliance with existing regulatory frameworks. As the classification defines subsequent requirements for manufacturing, quality control and clinical investigation, it is of major importance to define whether EVs are considered the active drug components or primarily serve as drug delivery vehicles. For an effective and particularly safe translation of EV-based therapies into clinical practice, a high level of cooperation between researchers, clinicians and competent authorities is essential. In this position statement, basic and clinical scientists, as members of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) and of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) program of the European Union, namely European Network on Microvesicles and Exosomes in Health and Disease (ME-HaD), summarize recent developments and the current knowledge of EV-based therapies. Aspects of safety and regulatory requirements that must be considered for pharmaceutical manufacturing and clinical application are highlighted. Production and quality control processes are discussed. Strategies to promote the therapeutic application of EVs in future clinical studies are addressed.

Vesiclepedia is a community-annotated compendium of molecular data on extracellular vesicles.

Microvesicles (MVs) are circular fragments of membrane released from the endosomal compartment as exosomes or shed from the surface membranes of most cell types. An increasing body of evidence indicates that they play a pivotal role in cell-to-cell communication. Indeed, they may directly stimulate target cells by receptor-mediated interactions or may transfer from the cell of origin to various bioactive molecules including membrane receptors, proteins, mRNAs, microRNAs, and organelles. In this review we discuss the pleiotropic biologic effects of MVs that are relevant for communication among cells in physiological and pathological conditions. In particular, we discuss their potential involvement in inflammation, renal disease, and tumor progression, and the evidence supporting a bidirectional exchange of genetic information between stem and injured cells. The transfer of gene products from injured cells may explain stem cell functional and phenotypic changes without the need of transdifferentiation into tissue cells. On the other hand, transfer of gene products from stem cells may reprogram injured cells to repair damaged tissues.