Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Aim of the study: A knowledge attitude and practice study centred on leishmaniasis and its treatment was performed among the Chayahuita, an Amazonian Peruvian ethnic group living in an endemic area. This study documents traditional Chayahuita plant's use and disease concepts. Also, activty of some medicinal plants used by the Chayahuita is highlighted and discussed. Materials and methods: Ninety-three Chayahuita people were interviewed, following a semi-structured questionnaire focussed on disease knowledge and perception, personal attitude and healing practices. Simultaneously, a collection of plants was performed in different ecotopes, in order to make an extensive inventory of the pharmacopoeia. Results: For the Chayahuita, cutaneous (CL) and muco-cutaneous leishmaniasis (MCL) are considered as diseases of their own, with specific names, aetiologies, mode of transmission. Regarding CL, Chayahuita people consider that the humid characteristic of the skin ulcer is a discriminative fact orienting the diagnostic forTa'ta' (leishmaniasis). Forty-six different species were designated useful against LC and /or MCL (29 species by means of the questionnaire and 27 species when collecting in different ecotopes). Thirty-seven extracts corresponding to 31 species used medicinally were screened in vitro against Leishmania amnzonensis axenic amastigotes, assessing their viability by the reduction of tetrazolium salt (MTT). Six species displayed a good activity ( 10 μg/ml < IC50 < 20 μg/ml): an undetermined hemi-epiphytic Clusiaceae, Cyhianthus anthuriophyllus Pipoly (Myrsinaceae), two Piper, Piper sanguineispicum Trel., and Piper loretoanum Trel. (Piperaceae), Desmodium axillare Sw. DC. (Fabaceae), and Clibadium sylvestre (Aubl.) Baill. (Asteraceae). Conclusion: Perception of leishmaniasis, attitude, treatments and diet prohibitions still largely reflects traditional Chayahuita cosmovision, even if some tentative of bio-medical re-interpretation is arising.
ISSN: 0378-8741

hal-01087667
https://hal-agroparistech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01087667
DOI : 10.1016/j.jep.2009.07.015

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