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 Wiley
Résumé : Tropical forests contain an important proportion of the carbon stored in terrestrial vegetation, but estimated aboveground biomass (AGB) in tropical forests varies two-fold, with little consensus on the relative importance of climate, soil and forest structure in explaining spatial patterns. Here, we present analyses from a plot network designed to examine differences among contrasting forest habitats (terra firme, seasonally flooded, and white-sand forests) that span the gradient of climate and soil conditions of the Amazon basin. We installed 0.5-ha plots in 74 sites representing the three lowland forest habitats in both Loreto, Peru and French Guiana, and we integrated data describing climate, soil physical and chemical characteristics and stand variables, including local measures of wood specific gravity (WSG). We use a hierarchical model to separate the contributions of stand variables from climate and soil variables in explaining spatial variation in AGB. AGB differed among both habitats and regions, varying from 78 Mg ha−1 in white-sand forest in Peru to 605 Mg ha−1 in terra firme clay forest of French Guiana. Stand variables including tree size and basal area, and to a lesser extent WSG, were strong predictors of spatial variation in AGB. In contrast, soil and climate variables explained little overall variation in AGB, though they did co-vary to a limited extent with stand parameters that explained AGB. Our results suggest that positive feedbacks in forest structure and turnover control AGB in Amazonian forests, with richer soils (Peruvian terra firme and all seasonally flooded habitats) supporting smaller trees with lower wood density and moderate soils (French Guianan terra firme) supporting many larger trees with high wood density. The weak direct relationships we observed between soil and climate variables and AGB suggest that the most appropriate approaches to landscape scale modeling of AGB in the Amazon would be based on remote sensing methods to map stand structure.
ISSN: 1354-1013

hal-01374829
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01374829
DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02432.x
PRODINRA : 183370