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
A suite of eclogite xenoliths from the Roberts Victor kimberlite (South Africa) is remarkable for its high abundances of base metal sulfides (BMS; up to 2 modal %). However, while sulfides are nearly ubiquitous in Type I eclogites (garnet > 0.07% Na2O), Type II eclogites (garnet < 0.07% Na2O) systematically lack sulfides. Two different sulfide assemblages are recognised within the Type I xenolith suite. Both populations are polyphase Cu-Ni-Fe sulfides, one characterised by the pyrrhotite (Po) + pentlandite (Pn) + chalcopyrite (Cp) assemblage and the other by the smythite/violarite (Smy/Vi) + (Ni)pyrite (Py) + Cp assemblage. The latter is the most abundant assemblage and reflects the supergene alteration of the "primary" Po + Pn + Cp assemblage. This process overprints the original composition of the sulfides by remobilising elements such as S, Fe, Ni, Se and Te. In the Type I eclogites, BMS occur as inclusions within silicates (garnet and clinopyroxene) and as interstitial grains. No chemical differences were observed between enclosed and interstitial sulfides. However, their relative abundances are correlated, indicating a similar origin. The Po + Pn + Cp assemblage is identical to eclogitic sulfides previously described in some Roberts Victor diamonds. Silicate-enclosed sulfides could appear to be early phases, but they are restricted to the outer parts of the silicate grains, suggesting a late incorporation during partial recrystallisation of silicate phases, induced by fluid-rock percolation-reaction during a metasomatic event. Positive whole-rock correlations between Se and (La/Sm)N⁎ and between Cu and ΣLREEN⁎ indicate a direct link between sulfide content and the enrichment of Mg + incompatible elements in the Type I eclogites, further supporting a metasomatic origin of the sulfide component. Similarly, a negative correlation between ΣLREEN⁎ and Cucpx implies that the metasomatic agent was at least partially composed of S-rich fluid (e.g. H2S, SO2) that reacted with the rock and leached Cu out of the silicates. The coupling between sulfides and LREE in the Type I eclogites, as well as the absence of sulfides and metasomatic features (e.g. unequilibrated grain boundaries, melt pockets, fluid inclusions, phlogopite) in the Type II eclogites, demonstrate that Type II eclogites did not undergo such a metasomatic event and therefore may represent the less-modified protoliths of Type I eclogites.
ISSN: 0009-2541

hal-00903856
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00903856
DOI : 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2013.06.015

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Type I and Type II eclogite xenoliths from the Roberts Victor kimberlite (South Africa) show marked differences in terms of microstructures, mineralogy, major-and trace-element compositions and oxygen-isotope compositions. The unequilibrated microstructures of Type I eclogites, their typical accessory assemblages (phologopite, diamond, sulphides, fluid inclusions) and the ubiquitous presence of "melt pockets" in garnets provide strong evidence of metasomatism. Type II eclogites systematically lack such features and are microstructurally more equilibrated. Type I eclogites are more magnesium-rich than most Type II (mean Mg# = 0.56 vs. 0.46), while Type II eclogites are generally more Ca-rich (mean CaO = 9 vs. 12 wt%) and Fe-rich (mean FeO = 10 vs. 12 wt%). Type I eclogites are systematically enriched in LREE, Sr, Ba, alkali elements, HFSE, Th and U compared to the more depleted Type II eclogites. Calculated trace-element patterns of fluids in equilibrium with Type I eclogites are closely similar to those of volatile-rich small-volume mantle melts in the carbonatite-kimberlite spectrum commonly inferred to be responsible for mantle metasomatism. Although oxygen isotopes are often used to argue for a subduction origin of mantle eclogites, correlations between delta O-18 of garnet and typical metasomatic tracers suggest that the metasomatic process also has shifted the oxygen-isotope compositions of the Type I eclogites toward heavier values. Roberts Victor Type I eclogites thus carry the imprint of a metasomatic process that strongly modified their major-element, trace-element and isotopic compositions, while the more pristine Type II eclogites escaped this modification. Therefore, attempts to constrain the origin of Roberts Victor eclogites should not be based on the much more abundant Type I eclogites, which retain little geochemical memory of their protoliths. The most suitable materials for such investigations may be the less metasomatised, but more rare, Type II eclogites.
ISSN: 0016-7037

hal-00669867
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00669867
DOI : 10.1016/j.gca.2011.08.035