Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
This study investigated the clinical epidemiology and resistance mechanisms of Acinetobacter baumannii and characterised the clonal diversity of carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii (CRAB) during an ICU-associated outbreak at Cayenne Hospital, French Guiana. All non-duplicate A. baumannii isolates from 2008 to 2014 were tested for antibiotic susceptibility by disk diffusion. Multilocus sequence typing, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and characterisation of carbapenemase-encoding genes were performed on CRAB. Of the 441 A. baumannii isolates, most were from males (54.0%) and were detected mainly from the ICU (30.8%) and medicine wards (21.8%). In the ICU, strains were mainly isolated from the respiratory tract (44.1%) and bloodstream (14.0%), whereas in medicine wards they mainly were from wound/drainage (36.5%) and bloodstream (25.0%). A. baumannii showed the greatest susceptibility to piperacillin/tazobactam (92.7%), imipenem (92.5%), colistin (95.6%) and amikacin (97.2%), being lower in the ICU and medicine wards compared with other wards. An outbreak of OXA-23-producing CRAB occurred in the 13-bed ICU in 2010. CRAB strains were more co-resistant to other antimicrobials compared with non-CRAB. Molecular genetics analysis revealed five sequence types [ST78, ST107 and ST642 and two new STs (ST830 and ST831)]. Analysis of PFGE profiles indicated cross-transmissions of CRAB within the ICU, between the ICU and one medicine ward during transfer of patients, and within that medicine ward. This study provides the first clinical and molecular data of A. baumannii from French Guiana and the Amazon basin. The ICU was the highest risk unit of this nosocomial outbreak of OXA-23-producing CRAB, which could subsequently disseminate within the hospital.
ISSN: 0924-8579

hal-01506828
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01506828
PUBMED : 27236843

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