Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Springer Verlag (Germany) Springer Verlag
Résumé : Direct numerical simulations of flow through two millimeter-scale rock samples of limestone and sandstone are performed using three diverse fluid dynamic simulators. The resulting steady-state velocity fields are compared in terms of the associated empirical probability density functions (PDFs) and key statistics of the velocity fields. The pore space geometry of each sample is imaged at 5.06−μm voxel size resolution using X-ray microtomography. The samples offer contrasting characteristics in terms of total connected porosity (about 0.31 for the limestone and 0.07 for the sandstone) and are typical of several applications in hydrogeology and petroleum engineering. The three-dimensional fluid velocity fields within the explicit pore spaces are simulated using ANSYS® FLUENT® ANSYS Inc. (2009), EULAG Prusa et al. (Comput. Fluids 37, 1193–1207 2008), and SSTOKES Sarkar et al. (2002). These computational approaches are highly disperse in terms of algorithmic complexity, differ in terms of their governing equations, the adopted numerical methodologies, the enforcement of internal no-slip boundary conditions at the fluid-solid interface, and the computational mesh structure. As metrics of comparison to probe in a statistical sense the internal similarities/differences across sample populations of velocities obtained through the computational systems, we consider (i) integral quantities, such as the Darcy flux and (ii) main statistical moments of local velocity distributions including local correlations between velocity fields. Comparison of simulation results indicates that mutually consistent estimates of the state of flow are obtained in the analyzed samples of natural pore spaces despite the considerable differences associated with the three computational approaches. We note that in the higher porosity limestone sample, the structures of the velocity fields obtained using ANSYS FLUENT and EULAG are more alike than either compared against the results obtained using SSTOKES. In the low-porosity sample, the structures of the velocity fields obtained by EULAG and SSTOKES are more similar than either is to the fields obtained using ANSYS FLUENT. With respect to macroscopic quantities, ANSYS FLUENT and SSTOKES provide similar results in terms of the average vertical velocity for both of the complex microscale geometries considered, while EULAG tends to render the largest velocity values. The influence of the pore space structure on fluid velocity field characteristics is also discussed.
ISSN: 1420-0597

hal-01174152
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01174152
DOI : 10.1007/s10596-015-9486-7

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 IOS Press
Résumé : International audience
This document, supported by both the International Society for Clinical Hemorheology and the European Society for Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, proposes new guidelines for hemorheological methods used in experimental and clinical studies. It is based on a similar document entitled: "Guidelines for measurement of blood viscosity and erythrocyte deformability" published in 1986 by the Expert Panel on Blood Rheology of the International Committee for Standardization in Hematology. Recent methods, techniques and instruments, as well as new approaches to interpretation of results, are added to these new guidelines; wide spread adoption should improve comparability between hemorheological laboratories and increase the reliability of rheological tests.
ISSN: 1386-0291

hal-00709840
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00709840
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00709840/document
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00709840/file/New_Guidelines_accepted_1-4-2009.pdf