Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
The 12 May 2008 the Sichuan earthquake was one of the worst natural disasters in China. Here, we present a detailed picture of the epicentral area inferred geophysical data. Based on the analysis of teleseismic data acquired by a dense seismic network, we highlight an abrupt 20 km Moho offset between the Sichuan Basin and the Tibetan plateau and a horizontal discontinuity at similar to 15 km depth, which may connect with the ruptured zone of the 2008 event. We obtain low mean crustal velocity ratios, which suggest the absence of a thick and extensive zone of partial melt within the crust beneath the eastern part of the Songpan-Garze Terrane. All our data support the idea that the Longmen Shan range mark a zone of active strain localization due to the rigid Yangtze craton resisting eastward displacement of the Tibetan Plateau.
ISSN: 0040-1951

hal-00534471
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00534471
DOI : 10.1016/j.tecto.2009.11.010

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

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
BACKGROUND: Thrombophilias are common disorders that increase the risk of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism and pregnancy loss and can also increase the risk of placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (severe pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infants, and placental abruption). We postulated that antepartum dalteparin would reduce these complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia. METHODS: In this open-label randomised trial undertaken in 36 tertiary care centres in five countries, we enrolled consenting pregnant women with thrombophilia at increased risk of venous thromboembolism or with previous placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. Eligible participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either antepartum prophylactic dose dalteparin (5000 international units once daily up to 20 weeks' gestation, and twice daily thereafter until at least 37 weeks' gestation) or to no antepartum dalteparin (control group). Randomisation was done by a web-based randomisation system, and was stratified by country and gestational age at randomisation day with a permuted block design (block sizes 4 and 8). At randomisation, site pharmacists (or delegates) received a randomisation number and treatment allocation (by fax and/or e-mail) from the central web randomisation system and then dispensed study drug to the local coordinator. Patients and study personnel were not masked to treatment assignment, but the outcome adjudicators were masked. The primary composite outcome was independently adjudicated severe or early-onset pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant (birthweight <10th percentile), pregnancy loss, or venous thromboembolism. We did intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00967382, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN87441504. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2000, and Sept 14, 2012, 292 women consented to participate and were randomly assigned to the two groups. Three women were excluded after randomisation because of ineligibility (two in the antepartum dalteparin group and one in the control group), leaving 146 women assigned to antepartum dalteparin and 143 assigned to no antepartum dalteparin. Some patients crossed over to the other group during treatment, and therefore for on-treatment and safety analysis there were 143 patients in the dalteparin group and 141 in the no dalteparin group. Dalteparin did not reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome in both intention-to-treat analysis (dalteparin 25/146 [17.1%; 95% CI 11.4-24.2%] vs no dalteparin 27/143 [18.9%; 95% CI 12.8-26.3%]; risk difference -1.8% [95% CI -10.6% to 7.1%)) and on-treatment analysis (dalteparin 28/143 [19.6%] vs no dalteparin 24/141 [17.0%]; risk difference +2.6% [95% CI -6.4 to 11.6%]). In safety analysis, the occurrence of major bleeding did not differ between the two groups. However, minor bleeding was more common in the dalteparin group (28/143 [19.6%]) than in the no dalteparin group (13/141 [9.2%]; risk difference 10.4%, 95% CI 2.3-18.4; p=0.01). INTERPRETATION: Antepartum prophylactic dalteparin does not reduce the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, pregnancy loss, or placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia at high risk of these complications and is associated with an increased risk of minor bleeding. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Pharmacia and UpJohn.
ISSN: 0923-7577

hal-01258557
http://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-01258557
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60793-5
PUBMED : 25066248