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 : LPSC14037
Scientific data collected with modern sensors or dedicated detectors exceed very often the perimeter of the initial scientific design. These data are obtained more and more frequently with large material and human efforts. A large class of scientific experiments are in fact unique because of their large scale, with very small chances to be repeated and to superseded by new experiments in the same domain: for instance high energy physics and astrophysics experiments involve multi-annual developments and a simple duplication of efforts in order to reproduce old data is simply not affordable. Other scientific experiments are in fact unique by nature: earth science, medical sciences etc. since the collected data is "time-stamped" and thereby non-reproducible by new experiments or observations. In addition, scientific data collection increased dramatically in the recent years, participating to the so-called "data deluge" and inviting for common reflection in the context of "big data" investigations. The new knowledge obtained using these data should be preserved long term such that the access and the re-use are made possible and lead to an enhancement of the initial investment. Data observatories, based on open access policies and coupled with multi-disciplinary techniques for indexing and mining may lead to truly new paradigms in science. It is therefore of outmost importance to pursue a coherent and vigorous approach to preserve the scientific data at long term. The preservation remains nevertheless a challenge due to the complexity of the data structure, the fragility of the custom-made software environments as well as the lack of rigorous approaches in workflows and algorithms. To address this challenge, the PREDON project has been initiated in France in 2012 within the MASTODONS program: a Big Data scientific challenge, initiated and supported by the Interdisciplinary Mission of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). PREDON is a study group formed by researchers from different disciplines and institutes. Several meetings and workshops lead to a rich exchange in ideas, paradigms and methods. The present document includes contributions of the participants to the PREDON Study Group, as well as invited papers, related to the scientific case, methodology and technology. This document should be read as a "facts finding" resource pointing to a concrete and significant scientific interest for long term research data preservation, as well as to cutting edge methods and technologies to achieve this goal. A sustained, coherent and long term action in the area of scientific data preservation would be highly beneficial.
http://hal.in2p3.fr/in2p3-00959072

in2p3-00959072
http://hal.in2p3.fr/in2p3-00959072
http://hal.in2p3.fr/in2p3-00959072/document
http://hal.in2p3.fr/in2p3-00959072/file/PREDON_Scientific_Data_Preservation_2014.pdf