Cellular immune response to Plasmodium falciparum after pregnancy is related to previous placental infection and parity

BACKGROUND: Malaria in pregnancy is characterised by the sequestration of Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocytes in placental intervillous spaces. Placental parasites express a specific phenotype, which allows them to cytoadhere to chondroitin sulfate A expressed by syncytiotrophoblasts. Malaria infection during pregnancy allows the acquisition of antibodies against placental parasites, these antibodies are thought to be involved in protection during subsequent pregnancies. METHODS: To investigate the development of a cellular response to placental parasites during pregnancy, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected from women at the time of their confinement. The study was performed in Cameroon where malaria transmission is perennial. In vitro cell proliferation and cytokine production were measured in response to non-malarial activators (concanavalin A and PPD), a recombinant protein from P. falciparum MSP-1, and erythrocytes infected by two P. falciparum lines, RP5 and W2. Like placental parasites, the RP5 line, but not W2, adheres to chondroitin sulfate A and to syncytiotrophoblasts. RESULTS: The proliferative response to all antigens was lower for cells obtained at delivery than 3 months later. Most interestingly, the cellular response to the RP5 line of P. falciparum was closely related to parity. The prevalence rate and the levels of response gradually increased with the number of previous pregnancies. No such relationship was observed with W2 line, or MSP-1 antigen. CONCLUSIONS: This suggests the occurrence of an immune response more specific for the RP5 line in women having had multiple pregnancies, and who are likely to develop immunity to pregnancy-associated parasites. Both humoral and cellular mechanisms may account for the lower susceptibility of multigravidae to malaria

L’imaginaire raciologique en France et en Russie, xixe- xxe siècle

Cet ouvrage analyse le devenir d’un « imaginaire raciologique », c’est-à-dire des représentations fondées sur l’idée de l’existence de « races » humaines – ces représentations qui se sont développées, dans le cadre d’une anthropologie classificatoire, au cours du xixe siècle, selon une pensée de type polygéniste, avec les implications racistes qu’elle a pu véhiculer ou légitimer. Cet imaginaire raciologique n’est pas sans contradiction : il postule parfois aussi bien une fixité des « races » qu’une peur qu’elles ne se mélangent. Mais dans un cas comme dans l’autre s’établissent des hiérarchies, mises au service de différents discours de domination et d’exclusion. La spécificité de l’approche comparatiste développée ici consiste à s’interroger sur la diffusion, en France, de ces discours raciologiques, mais aussi sur leurs réinterprétations (souvent mises au service d’un discours nationaliste), au xxe siècle, dans l’espace soviétique et russe, que ce soit dans la littérature ou dans des corpus de type anthropologique, sociologique, politique ou philosophique

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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