Calcul de stabilité des berges d'un canal : Application au réseau de canaux de la Sèvre Niortaise

Les berges de la Sèvre Niortaise sont régulièrement endommagées par des glissements circulaires. Des chantiers de restauration utilisant des soutènements par pieux, des géotextiles et des plantations ont déjà été réalisés. L'étendue des dégradations étant importante, l'optimisation des travaux est devenue nécessaire. Ainsi, nous travaillons à la réalisation d'un outil de prédiction des évolutions topographiques du canal et des berges. Celui-ci sert à la proposition de solutions de restauration. Le paramétrage du modèle s'appuie sur des essais mécaniques réalisés sur des échantillons de sol prélevés in situ. Une berge située à Damvix (85) a été modélisée. Cette étude a permis de déterminer la géométrie des surfaces de rupture potentielles et de tester l'influence des différents facteurs déstabilisants

LES SOLS MARQUEURS DE LA DYNAMIQUE DES SYSTEMES GEOMORPHOLOGIQUES CONTINENTAUX

LE MODE D'ORGANISATION DES FORMATIONS SUPERFICIELLES EVOLUE, A L'ECHELLE DES TEMPS GEOLOGIQUES, AU RYTHME DES PERTURBATIONS TECTONIQUES ET DES VARIATIONS CLIMATIQUES AFFECTANT LES SYSTEMES GEOMORPHOLOGIQUES. A L'ECHELLE HISTORIQUE, LES OPERATIONS D'AMENAGEMENT DE L'ESPACE ENTREPRISES PAR L'HOMME DEPUIS LE NEOLITHIQUE CONTRIBUENT EGALEMENT A LA GENESE DES PAYSAGES. LEUR DYNAMIQUE NE PEUT ETRE COMPRISE QUE GRACE A L'UTILISATION DE MARQUEURS FIABLES. SOUMIS AU JEU DE PROCESSUS CONCURRENTS (EROSION/SEDIMENTATION), LIEU D'ECHANGES ENTRE LA ROCHE ET LA BIOSPHERE, INTERFACE ENTRE L'HOMME ET LA NATURE, LE SOL CONSTITUE L'UN DE CES MARQUEURS. IL ENREGISTRE LES VARIATIONS DU MILIEU ET Y REPOND PAR UN MODE D'ORGANISATION SPECIFIQUE : C'EST UN ELEMENT STRUCTURANT DES PAYSAGES DONT IL CONSTITUE LA MEMOIRE. CETTE HYPOTHESE SERA MISE A L'EPREUVE DES FAITS AU TRAVERS DE DEUX GROUPES D'EXEMPLES. LE PREMIER (MASSIF DES LANDES DE GASCOGNE, MARAIS POITEVIN, ILE DE TATIHOU) CONCERNE DES SYSTEMES GEOMORPHOLOGIQUES RECENTS OU LA MARQUE DE L'HOMME, A LA RECHERCHE DE NOUVEAUX TERRITOIRES, EST DETERMINANTE. LE SECOND (SEUIL DU POITOU, PLAINE DE CAEN, MASSIF D'ECOUVES) CONCERNE DES SYSTEMES GEOMORPHOLOGIQUES ANCIENS DONT L'EVOLUTION BIO-RHEXISTASIQUE EST CONTROLEE PAR LE JEU COMPLEXE, INSCRIT DANS LES PERIODES GEOLOGIQUES, DES FACTEURS EXOGENES OU ENDOGENES. LES EXEMPLES MONTRENT, A PLUSIEURS NIVEAUX D'ECHELLE ET AVEC DIFFERENTES METHODES D'INVESTIGATIONS SCIENTIFIQUES, QUE LE SOL CONSTITUE, EN TANT QUE FORMATION CORRELATIVE, UN OUTIL PRIVILEGIE DE L'ANALYSE DE LA DYNAMIQUE DES SYSTEMES GEOMORPHOLOGIQUES CONTINENTAUX. POUR LE GEOLOGUE OU L'INGENIEUR, C'EST UN MOYEN D'APPROCHE PERMETTANT UNE GESTION PROSPECTIVE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT.CAEN-BU Sciences et STAPS (141182103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

International audienceIn 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field