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
Résumé : International audience
BACKGROUND: Worrying trends regarding human reproductive endpoints (e.g. semen quality, reproductive cancers) have been reported and there is growing circumstantial evidence for a possible causal link between these trends and exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). However, there is a striking lack of human data to fill the current knowledge gaps. To answer the crucial questions raised on human reproductive health, there is an urgent need for a reproductive surveillance system to be shared across countries. METHODS: A multidisciplinary network named HUman Reproductive health and Global ENvironment Network (HURGENT) was created aiming at designing a European monitoring system for reproductive health indicators. Collaborative work allowed setting up the available knowledge to design such a system. Furthermore we conducted an overview of 23 potential indicators, based upon a weight of evidence (WoE) approach according to their potential relation with EDC exposure. RESULTS: The framework and purposes of the surveillance system are settled as well as the approach to select suitable reproductive indicators. The indicators found with the highest scores according to the WoE approach are prostate and breast cancer incidence, sex ratio, endometriosis and uterine fibroid incidence, indicators related to the testicular dysgenesis syndrome, precocious puberty incidence and reproductive hormone levels. CONCLUSION: Not only sentinel health endpoints, but also diseases with high burdens in public health are highlighted as prior indicators in the context of EDC exposure. Our work can serve as a basis to construct, as soon as possible, the first multi-country reproductive monitoring system
European Journal of Public Health

hal-01197348
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01197348
DOI : 10.1093/eurpub/ckv153
PUBMED : 26330492