Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD IOP Publishing
Résumé : During November 2011 a EURAMET key comparison of absolute gravimeters was organized in the Underground Laboratory for Geodynamics in Walferdange, Luxemburg. The comparison assembled 22 participants coming from 16 countries and four different continents. The comparison was divided into two parts: a key comparison that included six National Metrology Institutes or Designated Institutes, and a pilot study including all participants. The global result given by the pilot study confirms that all instruments are absolutely coherent with each other. The results obtained in the key comparison confirm a good agreement between the NMI instruments. Finally, a link to ICAG-2009 shows also that the NMI gravimeters are stable in time. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
ISSN: 0026-1394

hal-00795586
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00795586
DOI : 10.1088/0026-1394/49/1A/07014

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD IOP Publishing
Résumé : We present the results of the third European Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters held in Walferdange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in November 2011. Twenty-two gravimeters from both metrological and non-metrological institutes are compared. For the first time, corrections for the laser beam diffraction and the self-attraction of the gravimeters are implemented. The gravity observations are also corrected for geophysical gravity changes that occurred during the comparison using the observations of a superconducting gravimeter. We show that these corrections improve the degree of equivalence between the gravimeters. We present the results for two different combinations of data. In the first one, we use only the observations from the metrological institutes. In the second solution, we include all the data from both metrological and non-metrological institutes. Those solutions are then compared with the official result of the comparison published previously and based on the observations of the metrological institutes and the gravity differences at the different sites as measured by non-metrological institutes. Overall, the absolute gravity meters agree with one another with a standard deviation of 3.1 µGal. Finally, the results of this comparison are linked to previous ones. We conclude with some important recommendations for future comparisons.
ISSN: 0026-1394

hal-00853755
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00853755
DOI : 10.1088/0026-1394/50/3/257

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