The role of mitochondria in the regulation of gamma rays induced mTOR-dependent senescence

The first aims of this study were to demonstrate if mitochondrial biogenesis and senescence can be induced simultaneously in cell lines upon exposure to a genotoxic stress, and if the presence of mtDNA mutations which impair the functionality of respiratory complexes can influence the ability of a cell to activate senescence. The data obtained on the oncocytic model XTC.UC1 demonstrated that the presence of mitochondrial dysfunction is involved in the maintenance of a senescent phenotype induced by γ-rays treatment. The involvement of mTORC1 in the regulation of senescence has been shown in this cell line. On the other hand, in cells which do not present mitochondrial dysfunction it has been verified that genotoxic stress determines the activation of both mitochondrial biogenesis and senescence. Further studies are necessary in order to verify if mitochondrial biogenesis sustains the activation of senescence. The second aim of this thesis was to determine the involvement of mTORC1 in the regulation of PGC-1α expression, in order to verify what is the cause of the development of oncocytoma in patients affected by two hereditary cancer syndromes; Cowden and Birt-hogg-Dubé . The study of oncocytic tumors developed by patients affected by these syndromes suggested that the double heterozigosity of the two causative genes, PTEN and FLCN respectively, induce the activation of mTORC1 and therefore the activation of PGC-1α expression. On XTC.UC1 cell line, the most suitable in vitro model, experiments of complementation of PTEN and FLCN were conducted. To date, these results demonstrated that mTORC1 is not involved in the regulation of PGC-1α expression, and PTEN and FLCN seem to have opposite effect on PGC-1α expression.

Development Aid to Water Management in Mali: The Actors, ‘Global’ Paradigms, and ‘Local’ Translations

Development aid involves a complex network of numerous and extremely heterogeneous actors. Nevertheless, all actors seem to speak the same ‘development jargon’ and to display a congruence that extends from the donor over the professional consultant to the village chief. And although the ideas about what counts as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aid have constantly changed over time —with new paradigms and policies sprouting every few years— the apparent congruence between actors more or less remains unchanged. How can this be explained? Is it a strategy of all actors to get into the pocket of the donor, or are the social dynamics in development aid more complex? When a new development paradigm appears, where does it come from and how does it gain support? Is this support really homogeneous? To answer the questions, a multi-sited ethnography was conducted in the sector of water-related development aid, with a focus on 3 paradigms that are currently hegemonic in this sector: Integrated Water Resources Management, Capacity Building, and Adaptation to Climate Change. The sites of inquiry were: the headquarters of a multilateral organization, the headquarters of a development NGO, and the Inner Niger Delta in Mali. The research shows that paradigm shifts do not happen overnight but that new paradigms have long lines of descent. Moreover, they require a lot of work from actors in order to become hegemonic; the actors need to create a tight network of support. Each actor, however, interprets the paradigms in a slightly different way, depending on the position in the network. They implant their own interests in their interpretation of the paradigm (the actors ‘translate’ their interests), regardless of whether they constitute the donor, a mediator, or the aid recipient. These translations are necessary to cement and reproduce the network.