Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
The Roussillon sedimentary Basin (South France) is a complex multi-layered aquifer, close to the Mediterranean Sea facing seasonally increases of water abstraction and salinization issues. We report geochemical and isotopic vertical variability in this aquifer using groundwater sampled with a Westbay System® at two coastal monitoring sites: Barcarès and Canet. The Westbay sampling allows pointing out and explaining the variation of water quality along vertical profiles, both in productive layers and in the less permeable ones where most of the chemical processes are susceptible to take place.The aquifer layers are not equally impacted by salinization, with electrical conductivity ranging from 460 to 43,000 μS·cm− 1. The δ2H–δ18O signatures show mixing between seawater and freshwater components with long water residence time as evidenced by the lack of contribution from modern water using 3H, 14C and CFCs/SF6. S(SO4) isotopes also evidence seawater contribution but some signatures can be related to oxidation of pyrite and/or organically bounded S. In the upper layers 87Sr/86Sr ratios are close to that of seawater and then increase with depth, reflecting water–rock interaction with argillaceous formations while punctual low values reflect interaction with carbonate. Boron isotopes highlight secondary processes such as adsorption/desorption onto clays in addition to mixings. At the Barcarès site (120 m deep), the high salinity in some layers appear to be related neither to present day seawater intrusion, nor to Salses-Leucate lagoonwater intrusion. Groundwater chemical composition thus highlights binary mixing between fresh groundwater and inherited salty water together with cation exchange processes, water–rock interactions and, locally, sedimentary organic matter mineralisation probably enhanced by pyrite oxidation.Finally, combining the results of this study and those of Caballero and Ladouche (2015), we discuss the possible future evolution of this aquifer system under global change, as well as the potential management strategies needed to preserve quantitatively and qualitatively this water resource.
ISSN: 0048-9697

hal-01685219
https://hal-brgm.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01685219
DOI : 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.016

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