Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
ISSN: 0003-4975

hal-01563338
http://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-01563338
DOI : 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.093
PUBMED : 27262916

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Aims: The aims of this study were to compare short-and long-term outcomes for clinical T2N0 oesophageal cancer with analysis of (i) primary surgery (S) versus neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery (NS), (ii) squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma subsets; and (iii) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Methods: Data were collected from 30 European centres from 2000 to 2010. Among 2944 included patients, 355 patients (12.1%) had cT2N0 disease; 285 (S) and 70 (NS), were compared in terms of short-and long-term outcomes. Propensity score matching analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.Results: No significant differences between the groups were shown in terms of in hospital morbidity and mortality. Nodal disease was observed in 50% of S-group at the time of surgery, with 20% pN2/N3. Utilisation of neoadjuvant therapy was associated with significant tumour downstaging as reflected by increases in pT0, pN0 and pTNM stage 0 disease, this effect was further enhanced with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. After adjustment on propensity score and confounding factors, for all patients and subset analysis of squamous cell and adenocarcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy had no significant effect upon survival or recurrence (overall, loco-regional, distant or mixed) compared to surgery alone. There were no significant differences between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in short-or long-term outcomes.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a surgery alone treatment approach should be recommended as the primary treatment approach for cT2N0 oesophageal cancer despite 50% of patients having nodal disease at the time of surgery.
ISSN: 0959-8049

hal-01666517
https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-01666517
DOI : 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.024

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Nature Publishing Group
Résumé : While Amazonian forests are extraordinarily diverse, the abundance of trees is skewed strongly towards relatively few 'hyperdominant' species. In addition to their diversity, Amazonian trees are a key component of the global carbon cycle, assimilating and storing more carbon than any other ecosystem on Earth. Here we ask, using a unique data set of 530 forest plots, if the functions of storing and producing woody carbon are concentrated in a small number of tree species, whether the most abundant species also dominate carbon cycling, and whether dominant species are characterized by specific functional traits. We find that dominance of forest function is even more concentrated in a few species than is dominance of tree abundance, with only ≈1% of Amazon tree species responsible for 50% of carbon storage and productivity. Although those species that contribute most to biomass and productivity are often abundant, species maximum size is also influential, while the identity and ranking of dominant species varies by function and by region.
ISSN: 2041-1723

hal-01204225
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01204225
DOI : 10.1038/ncomms7857
PRODINRA : 305614
PUBMED : 25919449

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Wiley Open Access
Résumé : Biodiversity continues to decline in the face of increasing anthropogenic pressures such as habitat destruction, exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species. Existing global databases of species' threat status or population time series are dominated by charismatic species. The collation of datasets with broad taxonomic and biogeographic extents, and that support computation of a range of biodiversity indicators, is necessary to enable better understanding of historical declines and to project - and avert - future declines. We describe and assess a new database of more than 1.6 million samples from 78 countries representing over 28,000 species, collated from existing spatial comparisons of local-scale biodiversity exposed to different intensities and types of anthropogenic pressures, from terrestrial sites around the world. The database contains measurements taken in 208 (of 814) ecoregions, 13 (of 14) biomes, 25 (of 35) biodiversity hotspots and 16 (of 17) megadiverse countries. The database contains more than 1% of the total number of all species described, and more than 1% of the described species within many taxonomic groups - including flowering plants, gymnosperms, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, beetles, lepidopterans and hymenopterans. The dataset, which is still being added to, is therefore already considerably larger and more representative than those used by previous quantitative models of biodiversity trends and responses. The database is being assembled as part of the PREDICTS project (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems - ). We make site-level summary data available alongside this article. The full database will be publicly available in 2015.
ISSN: 2045-7758

hal-01204216
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01204216
DOI : 10.1002/ece3.1303
PRODINRA : 280886

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD
Résumé : International audience
F.T. Kützing introduced Cocconeis molesta with only an uninformative description and a poor illustration: C. molesta has small, oblong valves and is an epiphyte. Another species, Cocconeis diaphana, described by William Smith, is said to have larger valves than C. molesta, with frustules that are relatively oblong. Smith described two forms: one with a distinct fascia on its raphe valve (var. β), the other without this feature. A third species, Cocconeis dirupta was described by Gregory, who expressed doubts that it differed from C. diaphana. Finally, Cocconeis molesta var. crucifera Grunow was first introduced in Van Heurck's Atlas but was subsequently treated by Van Heurck as a synonym of C. molesta. No previous account has examined the type material of these species. In this paper, we undertake that task and examine type slides and raw material in order to discriminate these different taxa. We conclude by recognizing three species: Cocconeis molesta Kütz., C. diaphana W.Sm. and C. dirupta W.Greg. Cocconeis diaphana var. β is considered to be a synonym of C. dirupta and C. molesta var. crucifera is considered to be a synonym of C. molesta. Lectotypes are designated for C. diaphana and C. dirupta.
ISSN: 2118-9773

Droits : http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
hal-01340453
https://hal-univ-perp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01340453
https://hal-univ-perp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01340453/document
https://hal-univ-perp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01340453/file/329-1709-1-PB.pdf
DOI : 10.5852/ejt.2016.204

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490