Éditeur(s) : John Libbey Eurotext Ltd
Virologie (1267-8694) (John Libbey Eurotext Ltd), 2011-11 , Vol. 15 , N. 6 , P. 353-360

Droits : 2011 John Libbey Eurotext Ltd
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00060/17118/14630.pdf
DOI:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2190
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00060/17118/

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 John Libbey Eurotext
Résumé : International audience
The diversity of chemicals used in hospitals (detergents-disinfectants, alcohol-based hand sanitizers, drugs, etc.) and recent developments in indoor air quality regulation of public access buildings require a better understanding of chemical risks in this particular environment. We developed a methodology for semi-quantitative chemical risk assessments in this environment to prioritize inhalation risks by sector and chemical. This methodology is based on a similar approach in the workplace that defines classes of exposures and of hazards. Their combination produces a risk matrix. Four criteria were used to determine the exposure classes: quantity and frequency of the chemical's use, volatility (vapor pressure), and the type of collective protective equipment associated with each area. The hazard class is also derived from four criteria: classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction, the existence of a toxicity reference value, occupational exposure limit values, and risk phrases (official risk descriptions, on labels, data sheets, etc). This methodology was tested in the Rennes University Hospital (Rennes, France) in five different hospital areas, with a specific survey undertaken to collect data about chemicals in each area. The results show the spatial specificity of chemical risks. Among the various sites analysed, the chemical risks of two require priority attention: the parasitology-mycology laboratory and patients' rooms. Because of their wide use in the hospital and the volatility of some of their components (alcohols), detergents-disinfectants contribute to increasing risk levels in all areas. The model is therefore discriminatory in terms of areas and substances.
ISSN: 1635-0421

hal-00952349
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00952349
DOI : 10.1684/ers.2013.0659

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Oxford University Press (OUP)
Résumé : International audience
ISSN: 0305-7453

hal-01470808
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01470808
DOI : 10.1093/jac/dkw352
PUBMED : 27609051

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Public Library of Science
Résumé : International audience
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess, for the first time, the nature of the indoor air contamination of hospitals. METHODS AND FINDINGS: More than 40 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including aliphatic, aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons, aldehydes, alcohols, ketones, ethers and terpenes were measured in a teaching hospital in France, from sampling in six sampling sites--reception hall, patient room, nursing care, post-anesthesia care unit, parasitology-mycology laboratory and flexible endoscope disinfection unit--in the morning and in the afternoon, during three consecutive days. Our results showed that the main compounds found in indoor air were alcohols (arithmetic means ± SD: 928±958 µg/m³ and 47.9±52.2 µg/m³ for ethanol and isopropanol, respectively), ethers (75.6±157 µg/m³ for ether) and ketones (22.6±20.6 µg/m³ for acetone). Concentrations levels of aromatic and halogenated hydrocarbons, ketones, aldehydes and limonene were widely variable between sampling sites, due to building age and type of products used according to health activities conducted in each site. A high temporal variability was observed in concentrations of alcohols, probably due to the intensive use of alcohol-based hand rubs in all sites. Qualitative analysis of air samples led to the identification of other compounds, including siloxanes (hexamethyldisiloxane, octamethyltrisiloxane, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane), anesthetic gases (sevoflurane, desflurane), aliphatic hydrocarbons (butane), esters (ethylacetate), terpenes (camphor, α-bisabolol), aldehydes (benzaldehyde) and organic acids (benzoic acid) depending on sites. CONCLUSION: For all compounds, concentrations measured were lower than concentrations known to be harmful in humans. However, results showed that indoor air of sampling locations contains a complex mixture of VOCs. Further multicenter studies are required to compare these results. A full understanding of the exposure of healthcare workers and patients to complex mixtures of chemical compounds can then be related to potential health outcomes.
ISSN: 1932-6203

hal-00874694
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00874694
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00874694/document
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00874694/file/VOC_Contamination-accepted.pdf
DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0055535