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 Springer Verlag
Résumé : We present a preliminary probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment of Canadian coastlines from local and far-field, earthquake, and large submarine landslide sources. Analyses involve published historical, palaeotsunami and palaeoseismic data, modelling, and empirical relations between fault area, earthquake magnitude, and tsunami run-up. The cumulative estimated tsunami hazard for potentially damaging run-up (≥1.5 m) of the outer Pacific coastline is ~40-80 % in 50 years, respectively one and two orders of magnitude greater than the outer Atlantic (~1-15 %) and the Arctic (<1 %). For larger run-up with significant damage potential (≥3 m), Pacific hazard is ~10-30 % in 50 years, again much larger than both the Atlantic (~1-5 %) and Arctic (<1 %). For outer Pacific coastlines, the ≥1.5 m run-up hazard is dominated by far-field subduction zones, but the probability of run-up ≥3 m is highest for local megathrust sources, particularly the Cascadia subduction zone; thrust sources further north are also significant, as illustrated by the 2012 Haida Gwaii event. For Juan de Fuca and Georgia Straits, the Cascadia megathrust dominates the hazard at both levels. Tsunami hazard on the Atlantic coastline is dominated by poorly constrained far-field subduction sources; a lesser hazard is posed by near-field continental slope failures similar to the 1929 Grand Banks event. Tsunami hazard on the Arctic coastline is poorly constrained, but is likely dominated by continental slope failures; a hypothetical earthquake source beneath the Mackenzie delta requires further study. We highlight areas susceptible to locally damaging landslide-generated tsunamis, but do not quantify the hazard.
ISSN: 0921-030X

hal-00963614
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00963614
DOI : 10.1007/s11069-013-0809-5