Éditeur(s) : Université des Antilles University of Cambridge Institut du Tout-Monde
Extrait de : "Édouard Glissant et "Le discours antillais" : de la source au delta" : colloque international, les 5 et 6 novembre 2019. Université des Antilles

Droits : CC-BY-NC-ND - Attribution - Pas d'utilisation commerciale - Pas de modification
Permalien : http://www.manioc.org/fichiers/V20031
V20031

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Springer Verlag
Résumé : We aimed to enhance understanding of the molecular diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) by building a new global dataset targeting previously unstudied geographical areas. In total, we sampled 96 plant species from 25 sites that encompassed all continents except Antarctica. AMF in plant roots were detected by sequencing the nuclear SSU rRNA gene fragment using either cloning followed by Sanger sequencing or 454-sequencing. A total of 204 AMF phylogroups (virtual taxa, VT) were recorded, increasing the described number of Glomeromycota VT from 308 to 341 globally. Novel VT were detected from 21 sites; three novel but nevertheless widespread VT (Glomus spp. MO-G52, MO-G53, MO-G57) were recorded from six continents. The largest increases in regional VT number were recorded in previously little-studied Oceania and in the boreal and polar climatic zones - this study providing the first molecular data from the latter. Ordination revealed differences in AM fungal communities between different continents and climatic zones, suggesting that both biogeographic history and environmental conditions underlie the global variation of those communities. Our results show that a considerable proportion of Glomeromycota diversity has been recorded in many regions, though further large increases in richness can be expected in remaining unstudied areas.
ISSN: 0940-6360

hal-01190520
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01190520
DOI : 10.1007/s00572-013-0482-2
PRODINRA : 206968

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