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 : International audience
Aim To examine variation in the phylogenetic diversity (PD) of tree communities across geographical and environmental gradients in Amazonia.Location Two hundred and eighty-three c.1ha forest inventory plots from across Amazonia.Methods We evaluated PD as the total phylogenetic branch length across species in each plot (PDss), the mean pairwise phylogenetic distance between species (MPD), the mean nearest taxon distance (MNTD) and their equivalents standardized for species richness (ses.PDss, ses.MPD, ses.MNTD). We compared PD of tree communities growing (1) on substrates of varying geological age; and (2) in environments with varying ecophysiological barriers to growth and survival.Results PDss is strongly positively correlated with species richness (SR), whereas MNTD has a negative correlation. Communities on geologically young- and intermediate-aged substrates (western and central Amazonia respectively) have the highest SR, and therefore the highest PDss and the lowest MNTD. We find that the youngest and oldest substrates (the latter on the Brazilian and Guiana Shields) have the highest ses.PDss and ses.MNTD. MPD and ses.MPD are strongly correlated with how evenly taxa are distributed among the three principal angiosperm clades and are both highest in western Amazonia. Meanwhile, seasonally dry tropical forest (SDTF) and forests on white sands have low PD, as evaluated by any metric.Main conclusions High ses.PDss and ses.MNTD reflect greater lineage diversity in communities. We suggest that high ses.PDss and ses.MNTD in western Amazonia results from its favourable, easy-to-colonize environment, whereas high values in the Brazilian and Guianan Shields may be due to accumulation of lineages over a longer period of time. White-sand forests and SDTF are dominated by close relatives from fewer lineages, perhaps reflecting ecophysiological barriers that are difficult to surmount evolutionarily. Because MPD and ses.MPD do not reflect lineage diversity per se, we suggest that PDss, ses.PDss and ses.MNTD may be the most useful diversity metrics for setting large-scale conservation priorities.
ISSN: 1366-9516

hal-01557462
https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-01557462
DOI : 10.1111/ddi.12357

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 Oxford University Press (OUP)
Résumé : International audience
Defining homologous genes is important in many evolutionary studies but raises obvious issues. Some of these issues are conceptual and stem from our assumptions of how a gene evolves, others are practical, and depend on the algorithmic decisions implemented in existing software. Therefore, to make progress in the study of homology, both ontological and epistemological questions must be considered. In particular, defining homologous genes cannot be solely addressed under the classic assumptions of strong tree thinking, according to which genes evolve in a strictly tree-like fashion of vertical descent and divergence and the problems of homology detection are primarily methodological. Gene homology could also be considered under a different perspective where genes evolve as ``public goods,'' subjected to various introgressive processes. In this latter case, defining homologous genes becomes a matter of designing models suited to the actual complexity of the data and how such complexity arises, rather than trying to fit genetic data to some a priori tree-like evolutionary model, a practice that inevitably results in the loss of much information. Here we show how important aspects of the problems raised by homology detection methods can be overcome when even more fundamental roots of these problems are addressed by analyzing public goods thinking evolutionary processes through which genes have frequently originated. This kind of thinking acknowledges distinct types of homologs, characterized by distinct patterns, in phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic unrooted or multirooted networks. In addition, we define `` family resemblances'' to include genes that are related through intermediate relatives, thereby placing notions of homology in the broader context of evolutionary relationships. We conclude by presenting some payoffs of adopting such a pluralistic account of homology and family relationship, which expands the scope of evolutionary analyses beyond the traditional, yet relatively narrow focus allowed by a strong tree-thinking view on gene evolution.
ISSN: 0737-4038

hal-01544794
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01544794
DOI : 10.1093/molbev/mst228