Evolution de la composition en polyamines des baies de raisin au cours du processus d'infection par Botrytis cinerea

Evolution of polyamine composition in grape berries during infection with Botrytis cinereaPolyamines are growth regulators occurring naturally in grapevine(Vitis vinifera L.) and pathogenic fungi, e.g. Botrytis cinerea. Investigation of polyamines of in vitro-grown Botrytis cinerea mycelium and infected berries has shown modifications in the metabolism of the berries which are directly related to the development of the fungi in the berries. The abnormal polyamine concentrations in infected berries appear to be of fungal origin for free polyamines and of plant origin for conjugated polyamines. The specific role of each type of polyamine is discussed with regard to the host-parasite relation.

Real-time navigation by fluorescence-based enhanced reality for precise estimation of future anastomotic site in digestive surgery.

Fluorescence-based enhanced reality (FLER) is a technique to evaluate intestinal perfusion based on the elaboration of the Indocyanine Green fluorescence signal. The aim of the study was to assess FLER's performances in evaluating perfusion in an animal model of long-lasting intestinal ischemia. An ischemic segment was created in 18 small bowel loops in 6 pigs. After 2 h (n = 6), 4 h (n = 6), and 6 h (n = 6), loops were evaluated clinically and by FLER to delineate five regions of interest (ROIs): ischemic zone (ROI 1), presumed viable margins (ROI 2a-2b), and vascularized areas (3a-3b). Capillary lactates were measured to compare clinical vs. FLER assessment. Basal (V 0 ) and maximal (V max) mitochondrial respiration rates were determined according to FLER. Lactates (mmol/L) at clinically identified resection lines were significantly higher when compared to those identified by FLER (2.43 ± 0.95 vs. 1.55 ± 0.33 p = 0.02) after 4 h of ischemia. Lactates at 2 h at ROI 1 were 5.45 ± 2.44 vs. 1.9 ± 0.6 (2a-2b; p < 0.0001) vs. 1.2 ± 0.3 (3a-3b; p < 0.0001). At 4 h, lactates were 4.36 ± 1.32 (ROI 1) vs. 1.83 ± 0.81 (2a-2b; p < 0.0001) vs. 1.35 ± 0.67 (3a-3b; p < 0.0001). At 6 h, lactates were 4.16 ± 2.55 vs. 1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 1.45 ± 0.83 at ROI 1 vs. 2a--2b (p = 0.013) vs. 3a-3b (p = 0.0035). Mean V 0 and V max (pmolO2/second/mg of tissue) were significantly impaired after 4 and 6 h at ROI 1 (V 0 (4h) = 34.83 ± 10.39; V max (4h) = 76.6 ± 29.09; V 0 (6h) = 44.1 ± 12.37 and V max (6h) = 116.1 ± 40.1) when compared to 2a--2b (V 0 (4h) = 67.1 ± 17.47 p = 0.00039; V max (4h) = 146.8 ± 55.47 p = 0.0054; V 0 (6h) = 63.9 ± 28.99 p = 0.03; V max (6h) = 167.2 ± 56.96 p = 0.01). V 0 and V max were significantly higher at 3a-3b. FLER may identify the future anastomotic site even after repetitive assessments and long-standing bowel ischemia

Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement

The expression of knowledge in language (i.e. epistemicity) consists of a number of distinct notions and proposed categories that are only partly related to a well explored forms like epistemic modals. The aim of the volume is therefore to contribute to the ongoing exploration of epistemic marking systems in lesser-documented languages from the Americas, Papua New Guinea, and Central Asia from the perspective of language description and cross-linguistic comparison. As the title of the volume suggests, part of this exploration consists of situating already established notions (such as evidentiality) with the diversity of systems found in individual languages. Epistemic forms that feature in the present volume include ones that signal how speakers claim knowledge based on perceptual-cognitive access (evidentials); the speaker’s involvement as a basis for claiming epistemic authority (egophorics); the distribution of knowledge between the speech-participants where the speaker signals assumptions about the addressee’s knowledge of an event as either shared, or non-shared with the speaker (engagement marking).  &nbsp

Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement

The expression of knowledge in language (i.e. epistemicity) consists of a number of distinct notions and proposed categories that are only partly related to a well explored forms like epistemic modals. The aim of the volume is therefore to contribute to the ongoing exploration of epistemic marking systems in lesser-documented languages from the Americas, Papua New Guinea, and Central Asia from the perspective of language description and cross-linguistic comparison. As the title of the volume suggests, part of this exploration consists of situating already established notions (such as evidentiality) with the diversity of systems found in individual languages. Epistemic forms that feature in the present volume include ones that signal how speakers claim knowledge based on perceptual-cognitive access (evidentials); the speaker’s involvement as a basis for claiming epistemic authority (egophorics); the distribution of knowledge between the speech-participants where the speaker signals assumptions about the addressee’s knowledge of an event as either shared, or non-shared with the speaker (engagement marking).  &nbsp

Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement

The expression of knowledge in language (i.e. epistemicity) consists of a number of distinct notions and proposed categories that are only partly related to a well explored forms like epistemic modals. The aim of the volume is therefore to contribute to the ongoing exploration of epistemic marking systems in lesser-documented languages from the Americas, Papua New Guinea, and Central Asia from the perspective of language description and cross-linguistic comparison. As the title of the volume suggests, part of this exploration consists of situating already established notions (such as evidentiality) with the diversity of systems found in individual languages. Epistemic forms that feature in the present volume include ones that signal how speakers claim knowledge based on perceptual-cognitive access (evidentials); the speaker’s involvement as a basis for claiming epistemic authority (egophorics); the distribution of knowledge between the speech-participants where the speaker signals assumptions about the addressee’s knowledge of an event as either shared, or non-shared with the speaker (engagement marking).  &nbsp

Evidentiality, egophoricity and engagement

The expression of knowledge in language (i.e. epistemicity) consists of a number of distinct notions and proposed categories that are only partly related to a well explored forms like epistemic modals. The aim of the volume is therefore to contribute to the ongoing exploration of epistemic marking systems in lesser-documented languages from the Americas, Papua New Guinea, and Central Asia from the perspective of language description and cross-linguistic comparison. As the title of the volume suggests, part of this exploration consists of situating already established notions (such as evidentiality) with the diversity of systems found in individual languages. Epistemic forms that feature in the present volume include ones that signal how speakers claim knowledge based on perceptual-cognitive access (evidentials); the speaker’s involvement as a basis for claiming epistemic authority (egophorics); the distribution of knowledge between the speech-participants where the speaker signals assumptions about the addressee’s knowledge of an event as either shared, or non-shared with the speaker (engagement marking).  &nbsp