Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Oxford University Press (OUP)
Résumé : International audience
BACKGROUND: A prospective study of infectious encephalitis was conducted in France in 2007. In total, 253 patients were enrolled with a proven etiological diagnosis for 52%. The cohort of surviving patients with encephalitis was assessed for sequelae and impairment 3 years after enrollment. METHODS: Patients, their family, and general practitioners (GPs) were interviewed by phone to document persisting symptoms, return to work, and past and current leisure activities, with standardized questionnaires. The IQCODE (Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly) was completed with relatives. The global outcome was determined in all patients with the Glasgow outcome scale. RESULTS: In 2010, 20 patients (10%) were unavailable for follow-up, 2 (1%) were excluded, and 18 (9%) had died since hospital discharge. Data were available for 167 survivors and 9 patients whose death was related to the encephalitis. The outcome was favorable in 108 of 176 patients (61%) (71 with complete resolution), 31 (18%) were mildly impaired, 25 (14%) were severely impaired, and 3 (1%) were in a vegetative state. The most frequent symptoms were difficulty concentrating (42%), behavioral disorders (27%), speech disorders (20%), and memory loss (19%). Fifteen of 63 patients (24%) previously employed were still unable to resume work. Long-term outcome was significantly associated with comorbid conditions, age, level of education, and the causative agent of encephalitis. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with encephalitis experienced a favorable outcome 3 years after hospital discharge. However, minor to severe disability persists in a high number of cases with consequences for everyday life. Physical and mental impairment should be evaluated in all patients with encephalitis, and neuropsychological rehabilitation implemented whenever needed.
ISSN: 1058-4838

hal-00875190
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00875190
DOI : 10.1093/cid/cis226
PUBMED : 22460967

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Wiley-VCH Verlag
Résumé : International audience
ISSN: 1439-4235

hal-01234189
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234189
DOI : 10.1002/cphc.201500610

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