Éditeur(s) : Elsevier Science Inc
Résumé : The sex-determining system of Crassostrea gigas is still poorly known, especially regarding the potential influence of temperature. In order to address this question, mRNA expressions of actors of the molecular cascade (Cg-DMI, Cg-SoxE, Cg-beta-catenin, Cg-Foxl2/Cg-FoxI2os) and of Oyvlg, a germ cell marker, were investigated by real-time PCR in spat grown at different temperatures (18, 22, 25 and 28 degrees C). In parallel, gonadic differentiation, gametogenesis and sex ratios were assessed by histology at each of these temperatures. Whatever the temperature, Cg-DMI, Cg-SoxE, Cg-beta-catenin and Oyvlg expressions peaked at the same developmental stage, always after Cg-Foxl2/Cg-Foxl2os (around 40-44 dpf for spat grown at 18 degrees C). Temperatures increased the kinetics of first gonadic differentiation and gametogenesis. At 25 degrees C a significant switch occurred in sex ratio towards males and in the balance of expression between male and female genes, in favor of males. A slight gametogenesis disturbance was also observed. These results strengthen the hypotheses about the sex-determining time window and molecular cascade governing the development of C gigas, with notably the involvement of Cg-Foxl2/Cg-Foxl2os in the very early steps. They also suggest an influence of temperature on the oyster's sex determination which, associated to genetic control, would induce a mixed sex determination system (GSD +TSD). (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparative Biochemistry And Physiology A-molecular & Integrative Physiology (1095-6433) (Elsevier Science Inc), 2013-05 , Vol. 165 , N. 1 , P. 61-69

Droits : 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00136/24767/22874.pdf
DOI:10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.02.007
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00136/24767/

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Oxford University Press (OUP)
Résumé : International audience
OBJECTIVES: To compare virological effectiveness in patients who continued on a virologically successful first-line boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-containing combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimen or who switched to a PI-free cART including efavirenz, nevirapine or abacavir. METHODS: From the French Hospital Database on HIV, we selected 439 patients with undetectable viral load (VL) on a first-line boosted PI-containing cART regimen who switched to a PI-free combination including efavirenz, nevirapine or abacavir. Each of these patients was matched with three patients who continued to take their first-line cART regimen, on the basis of gender, age, CD4 cell count, VL, date of cART initiation and the duration of VL undetectability. Time to virological failure (VF) was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models. RESULTS: The 12 month probabilities of VF were 3.7% and 5.7% in non-switch and switch patients, respectively, and 3.9%, 7.2% and 9.0% in patients switching to efavirenz-, nevirapine- and abacavir-containing cART, respectively. After adjustment, only patients switching to abacavir-containing cART had a higher risk of VF than non-switch patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.79). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from a virologically successful first-line boosted PI-containing cART regimen to a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing cART regimen containing either efavirenz or nevirapine is virologically safe, while switching to abacavir-containing cART should be avoided.
ISSN: 0305-7453

hal-00875284
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00875284
DOI : 10.1093/jac/dkr208
PUBMED : 21636583

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