Current methods for characterisation of extracellular vesicles (EVs) need further standardisation in order to obtain an acceptable level of data comparability. Size and concentration of EVs can be determined by nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA). However, both the heterogeneity of EVs and the choice of instrument settings may cause an appreciable analytical variation. Intra-assay (within-day, n = 6) and inter-assay (day-to-day, n = 6) variations (coefficient of variation, % CV) of different preparations of EVs and artificial vesicles or beads were determined using two NanoSight NS500 instruments, located at different laboratories. All analyses were performed by the same operator. The effect of applying identical software settings or instrument-optimised settings for each sample type and instrument was also evaluated. Finally, the impact of different operators and the use of two different software versions were investigated. The intra-assay CVs were 1–12% for both EVs and artificial samples, measured on the same instrument. The overall day-to-day variation was similar for both instruments, ranging from 2% to 25%. However, significantly different results were observed between the two instruments using identical software settings. The effect of applying instrument-optimised settings reduced the mismatch between the instruments, resulting in little to no significant divergences. The impact of using different operators and software versions when analysing silica microspheres and microvesicles from monocytes using instrument-optimised settings on the same instrument did not contribute to significant variation compared to the overall day-to-day variation of one operator. Performance differences between two similar NTA instruments may display significant divergences in size and concentration measurements when analysing EVs, depending on applied instrument settings and technical conditions. The importance of developing a streamlined and standardised execution of analysis, as well as monitoring longitudinal variation parameters on both biological and synthetic samples, should be highlighted.

Exosomes are released by cells after fusion of multivesicular bodies with the plasma membrane. The molecular mechanism of this process is still unclear. We investigated the role of sphingolipids and flotillins, which constitute a raft-associated family of proteins, in the release of exosomes. Interestingly, our results show that DL-threo-1-phenyl-2-decanoylamino-3-morpholino-1-propanol, an inhibitor of glucosylceramide synthase, seemed to affect the composition of exosomes released from PC-3 cells. However, the inhibition of ceramide formation from the de novo pathway by fumonisin B 1 did not affect exosome secretion. Moreover, in contrast to findings obtained with other cell lines published so far, inhibition of neutral sphingomyelinase 2, an enzyme that catalyzes the formation of ceramide from sphingomyelin, did not inhibit the secretion of exosomes in PC-3 cells. Finally, small interfering RNA-mediated downregulation of flotillin-1 and flotillin-2 did not significantly change the levels of released exosomes as such, but seemed to affect the composition of exosomes. In conclusion, our results reveal the involvement of glycosphingolipids and flotillins in the release of exosomes from PC-3 cells, and indicate that the role of ceramide in exosome formation may be cell-dependent.