Section des unités de recherche

Report from the visiting committee Research unit :

Modèles en Biologie Cellulaire et Evolutive

(MBCE) - UMR 7628

From university Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6

December 2008

2

Section des Unités de recherche

Report from the visiting committee Research unit : Modèles en Biologie Cellulaire et Evolutive (MBCE) - UMR 7628

University Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6

December 2008

3

Report from the visiting committee

Research unit :

Name of the research unit : Modèles en Biologie Cellulaire et Evolutive (MBCE)

Requested label : UMR

N° in case of renewal : 7628

Head of the research unit : Gilles Bœuf (jusqu’au 31/12/08) - Jacky Falcon (à partir du 01/01/09)

University or school :

Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6)

Other institutions and research organization :

CNRS (départements Vivant et EDD)

Date(s) of the visit :

12 et 13 décembre 2007

Members of the visiting committee

Chairman of the visiting committee : M. BUAT-MENARD Patrick, DR CNRS, Université de Bordeaux 1

Other committee members : M. DAUVIN Jean-Claude, PU, Université de Lille 1

M. DEWARUMEZ Jean-Marie, Dr., IR1 CNRS, Station marine de Wimereux

M. DELAUNAY Franck, PU, Université de Nice-Sophia-Antipolis

M. FERRIER David E.K., Dr., University of St Andrews, UK

Mme GIULIANO Laura, Scientific Advisor, Monaco

M. LEMAIRE Patrick, DR CNRS, Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille 2

M. QUEGUINIER Bernard, PU, Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille 2

CNU, CoNRS, CSS INSERM, INRA, INRIA, IRD….. representatives : M. CLAVIER Jacques, PU, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, au titre du CNU 67

M. PRIGENT Claude, DR CNRS, Université de Rennes 1, au titre du Co CNRS section 26

Observers

AERES scientific representatives : M. GERMON Jean-Claude, coordonnateur

M. LAUDET Vincent

Universty or school representative : Françoise GAILL, représentante de Jean-Charles POMEROL, Président de l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie

Reserach organization representative (s) : M. LAGADEUC Yvan, CNRS, chargé de mission Département « EDD »

M. LE BIVIC André, CNRS, Directeur Scientifique Adjoint du Département « Vivant »

M. MONFRAY Patrick, CNRS, Directeur Scientifique Adjoint Départements « MPPU/INSU et EDD»

M. MOULIN Cyril, CNRS, chargé de mission Département «MPPU»

4

5

Report from the visiting committee

1 Short presentation of the research unit UMR 7628 is a small research unit with 20 persons in permanent position at 1 th of january 2009 : 3 teachers (2 PU and 1 MCU) from Paris 6, 5 scientists (2 DR and 3 CR) from CNRS, 7 engineers and 5 other ITA and IATOS. This estimation takes into account the departure of a group (2 DR, 1 CR, 1 MCU and 1 IR) to the UMR 7621.

During the 4 last years 1 CR was recruited in the UMR while 2 scientists retired;for the next four year period 4 persons in permanent position (2 PR, 1 DR and IR) are abble to retire.

Six of the 8 teachers and scientists are HDR graduated ; 5 of them manage or managed PhD students ; 2 teachers have benefit of PEDR. During the last 4 years 8 PhD theses were defended in the UMR and were all funded (4 by MESR, 1 by other Ministry, 1 by CNRS, 2 by foreign countries), while 4 PhD theses are in progress (2 MESR, 1 BDI CNRS, 1 external job). The previous 8 PhD are mentioned in post doc positions.

All the teachers and scientists of the unit had a regular publishing activity during the 4 last years (8 /8 EC+C publishing).

2 Preparation and execution of the visit Evaluation of the 3 units of Banyuls Research Center (UMS 2348, UMR 7621, UMR 7628) was managed with the same evaluating committee in order to allow a general view of their activities and organisation. Constitution of the evaluating committee included 10 scientific experts and representatives of AERES (2 delegates) CNRS and Paris 6 University. The committee mentions the good quality of reception by all the staff of Banyuls Research Center and the excellent organisation during the 2 days of the visit. The committee members received well written and illustrated documents before the visit ; they appreciated the good quality of oral presentations in plenary sessions by the directors of the different units and teams of research and the richness of discussions with researchers and staff of technical services during the visit in the labs, and during the meetings with the heads of research units, with the representatives of staff and with the delegates of CNRS and Paris 6 University. According AERES recommendations 3 different reports have been produced : one for each of the two research unit (UMR) and one for the facility unit (UMS/OSU).

3 Overall appreciation of the activity of the research unit, of its links with local, national and international partners

This unit currently hosts 6 small groups working on loosely connected topics (cell cycle research, circadian rhythms, axial patterning and evolution) in evolutionarily distant organisms including picoalgae, several echinoderms, amphioxus and fish. The group working on phytoplancton genomics is asking to move to the other unit, UMR7621, which will certainly weaken UMR7628, but also establish an interesting bridge between ecological and biological approaches within the Marine Station.

The productivity and quality of the projects of the remaining groups is uneven, ranging from low to very good. The committee recommends the cessation of activity of the group “Cell cycle molecular regulation”, which lacks critical mass, leadership and a clear scientific outlook. Two more recently arrived groups (Evolution and development of chordates; Circadian regulation of cell division) show highest promise although they have

received less support than others from the direction. These groups should be reinforced and act as motors during the reorganisation of the unit.

Technical support in the unit is excellent and is a major asset for the future. The number of PhD students, Post-docs and young researchers is in contrast insufficient.

The unit currently faces several major challenges, most of which were already mentioned in the previous reports on this Unit (2003, 2006). Addressing these issues will need a profound reorganisation of the unit and a reflection on its scientific goals for the future. If such a redefinition was not successful within 2 years, an integration of the best performing groups within UMR 7621 would be recommended. An alternative is that the best groups relocate to other institutes that may provide a higher level of support.

Scientific vision for the Unit :

Historically the Unit focused its attention to the regulation of the cell cycle using marine invertebrates. This focus has become less clear and the strongest groups are now working on axial patterning in Amphioxus and the coupling between circadian rythms and the cell cycle in a picoalgae. The scientific focus of the unit thus needs to be redefined, bearing in mind that the strength and originality of the Observatory lie in the marine organisms that can be collected in the area. One way to help with this redefinition is to initiate an open call for applications for one to two new groups and to take into account during the selection process the complementarity with existing groups. At equal scientific quality, groups that could synergise with the groups working on “Evolution and development of chordates”and “Circadian regulation of cell division” should be given priority.

Leadership :

The current director has indicated that he will step down at the end of his current mandate. Ideally, the new director should be external and bring a strong scientific vision. Recent attempts to find an external director have failed, but may have been given insufficient energy. In light of this failure, the committee suggests the appointment of an internal candidate as director. Additionally, an external overseeing committee should be nominated as soon as possible by CNRS and the UPMC. This committee will be consulted and invited to visit every 2 months to monitor the progress of the reorganisation and help the director implement the most difficult measures. The CNRS and UPMC Human Resources Departments should be involved to assist the personnel who will need to reorient their activities.

Allocation of resources :

Resources (lab space, office space, technical staff) are currently allocated on historical grounds rather than on the basis of the promise or productivity of the groups. Precise rules need to be defined (minimal/maximal amount of space for a group, single technical help per group), so that the most promising groups receive adequate support. The groups “Evolution and development of chordates”and “Circadian regulation of cell division” urgently need more space and a technician, respectively.

Difficulty of recruitment of students :

Students and Post-docs are critically needed in the Unit. Current students reported that they felt isolated from the main UPMC Campus and had difficulties attending mandatory courses of their graduate school. The unit should systematically cover the travel expenses of students attending graduate courses. The students also mentioned that they could not act as "moniteur" (teaching assistant) as there were no undergraduate courses in the Observatory. The rules for the level at which “moniteurs” teach may have to be adapted to the situation of the Observatory. Overall, there was a feeling of discrimination against Banyuls by the Parisian doctoral schools. An active policy to encourage students to come to Banyuls should be adopted by the University of Paris 6. This should include direct allocation by the President of PhD fellowships to the best groups (“Evolution and development of chordates”and “Circadian regulation of cell division”). CNRS should have an active policy of regularly targeting Post-doctoral fellowships to the best performing groups of the Unit.

Relationships to the other units in the observatory :

There is currently little interaction between the two UMRs in the Observatory. The move of the group working on phytoplankton genomics to UMR7621 offers an excellent opportunity to establish stronger ties. This group and the group “Circadian regulation of cell division” have complementary, non overlapping projects on picoalgae and should be in a perfect position to benefit from each other and contribute to establishing closer

6

ties, provided they can establish a professional relationship. The modelling approaches introduced by the UMR 7621 group “Dynamical properties of marine biological systems”could also find applications in the projects of the UMR7628 teams. Finally, the UMR7628 should play a larger role in the definition of the technical platforms available in the UMS. The aquariums are now being in part renovated and further steps in this direction would considerably increase the attractiveness of the station for biologists.

Comparison of the quality of the research/University support in Banyuls and Villefranche/mer :

The UPMC owns two stations on the Mediterranean, in Banyuls and Villefranche/mer. Both stations host a Cell and developmental biology unit, and both units are faced with difficulties, which however are of different nature. The UMR7628 in Banyuls suffers from a poor definition of scientific priorities, but enjoys considerable support from the UPMC and ample space. In contrast, the UMR in Villefranche produces world-class research but suffers from a near total absence of support from UPMC and a clear lack of space. The committee finds very surprising that in the light of the great difference in the current performance of the research groups in Developmental and Cell biology in the two stations, most University positions are allocated to the weakest unit (Banyuls). The quality of the research developed in Villefranche also suggests that the teaching potential is higher in Villefranche than in Banyuls. The committee thus strongly recommends a more balanced support, driven by the quality of research and teaching potential rather than on political issues.

4 Specific appreciation group by group and/or project by project

Group « Circadian regulation of cell division »

Strong Points

• This group is developing a well focused, original and rigorous research program exploring the frontier between several key biological processes ((metabolism/cell cycle/biological clock) using a very original model system (the picoplankton Ostreococcus tauri). This model has no equivalent in the field of chronobiology and is a major asset for the Unit and the Station.

• The approaches are relevant to the issue that is addressed and the required methodological developments have been successfully completed.

• The group is generating important biological resources with a high potential (both for basic and applied research; e.g. O.t mutants library).

• Publications are of good to excellent quality, 50 % being in journals with IF above 9. The outlook is excellent.

• One US patent, potential for additional ones.

In summary, the committee feels that this group has done extremely well in recent years and has very exciting projects.

Weak Points

Another group is working on similar picoplankton models at UMR 7621 but with apparently no added value for this group excepted for a joint paper. The same hold true for the other cell cycle or chronobiology groups. In summary, the group looks quite isolated. The group leader should make all efforts to develop a more collaborative attitude.

The group does not have the necessary human resources required for the full development of its research program. There is a clear lack of permanent technical support.

Recommendations

• In light of the quality of the accomplished research and projects, the director of the Unit should make sure that this group receives maximal support.

7

• The allocation of a CNRS/UPMC Technician/Engineer is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the biological resources generated by the group.

• The potential of the group in terms of patenting should be actively supported as the team is too small to efficiently handle this important aspect of its work. Otherwise, given the size of the group, this may compromise the progress of basic issues.

• The model and the associated technologies developed by the team may require at this stage a prospective analysis in order to identify future promising lines of research.

Group « Evolution and Development of chordates »

Strong points

• The group has established itself as the main centre for obtaining the European species of amphioxus (Branchiostoma lanceolatum) and developing the tools necessary for its success as a model system in developmental biology.

• Successful manipulation of the breeding cycle was achieved by the group (in a commendably short space of time). This, for the first time, allows amphioxus researchers to have access to large amounts of fertilised eggs over several months, and during day-time. This makes the station the only place in the world in which amphioxus can realistically be used as a model system for embryological studies.

• Development of molecular tools (ESTs, primary cell lines, etc…).

Weak Points

• The space allocated to the group is presently inadequate. The lab area is too small to accommodate the five members of the group satisfactorily. Procedures for access to UMR 7628 ‘communal’ equipment also need to be clarified to permit more efficient usage.

• The biological questions addressed by the proposed embryological project should be more precisely defined. The committee suggests the adoption of a biological process-based rather than a gene family-based strategy. A strong effort should be made to favor functional (gene loss or gain of function, embryological manipulations) over descriptive (gene expression) studies.

• There is a danger that the embryology project falls second to technical development. This would have a negative impact on the productivity of the group, which is at present difficult to judge: a single paper describing the spawning behaviour and early embryos of the European amphioxus was published since the group's arrival, but the poor working conditions so far have inevitably had an impact on the development/production of this small young group.

• Current aquarium equipment is inadequate and needs a major overhaul. The present situation of working in a building site with few dedicated tanks will make it exceptionally difficult for members of the Laboratoire Arago to achieve the stated aim of developing marine model systems, such as amphioxus. In addition to the rapid completion of building work and adequate allocation of space, the aquarium facilities should have controlled light (and ideally temperature) that can be controlled by members of the research groups without interference from the buildings maintenance and security staff.

Recommendations

• This group has been doing extremely well in light of the difficult working conditions it has been confronted with since its arrival. The group should accordingly be given larger lab space, and its aquarium facility overhauled.

• The group should focus on the definition and completion of embryological studies, rather than on the further development of tools that others would use for such studies.

• The group would strongly benefit from closer ties with excellent embryologists working on model organisms that have a long tradition of functional developmental perturbations, and who could provide critical advice on the most promising functional studies to be carried out in amphioxus. As Villefranche/mer also belongs to UPMC, and the quality of embryological research there is outstanding, this may be a good place to contact as a priority.

8

Group « Environmental factors and adaptative mechanisms »

Strong Points

• Group with a strong and well recognized expertise in the field of neuroendocrinology of the melatoninergic system in fish.

• The evolutionnary approach is original in the field of chronobiology and could potentially answer important questions. Another team “Evolution and Development of chordates” also works on chordates.

• Both the size and expertise of the team are adequate for addressing challenging issues.

Weak points

• The main line of research is somewhat difficult to identify and some aspects may appear quite opportunistic (global warming issue) or a mere inheritance from history (the schrew, see below). There is a clear need for the identification of fewer topics on which research should be focused. This could be: 1) Evolution of the melatonin synthesis pathway (ANAATs) in chordates (very good opportunity for collaboration with the “Evolution and Development of chordates” group and 2) Developmental aspects of photoreception and pituitary function in fish

• The Suncus etruscus (shrew) model does not compare favorably with the mouse model for ageing studies and furthermore splits the research activity of the group while requiring a significant amount of human resources.

• Too few interactions exist with the “Circadian regulation of cell division” group who is also involved in a chronobiology research program.

• Publications are numerous, yet very much split and with a number of reports in low ranking journals. This may be the consequence of insufficient focus in the group's research.

Recommendations

• Closer collaboration on the evolutionary issue with the “Evolution and Development of chordates” group.

• Projects dealing with comparative biology or mechanistic issues should be more clearly defined and prioritized.

• The potential impact of research on the melatoninergic system should be reevaluated in the light of the tremendous progress made during the last 10 years in the field of chronobiology.

• Stop the Suncus project, which has little chance of giving rise to major advances in the field and leads to a deleterious dilution of efforts.

Group « CDK-dependant cellular mechanisms »

Strong points

• A recognised expertise in the field of urchin CDK biology.

• Good integration in the International Urchin community, testified by a coordinator role in a genomic Developmental Biology article on cell cycle control and DNA metabolism. Involvement in the Marine Genomics Europe Network of excellence and in other European initiatives (partner of GIS Marine Genomics "Sequencing of P. lividus EST", coordinator of Marie Curie fellowships "Marine Models for the analysis of cell proliferation and differentiation").

• Good collaboration with Chile (supported by CNRS, MAE, CONICYT, Ambassade de France).

• The team published 15 papers over the past 4 years.

Weak points

• The diversity of projects is too large. For the next four years the team wishes to keep studying the control of DNA replication after fertilization (How are spermatidic histones replaced by maternal histones? How are pre-replication complexes formed and activated?) and to keep analysing the function of CDK13 (What is (are) the associated cyclin(s), What is the functional relevance of the association CDK13/p32? What is the function of CDK13 in splicing?). This long list highlights a difficulty in focusing the activity of the group.

9

• The group has difficulties recruiting new members including students and permanent researchers (CNRS or UPMC). As a consequence, the size of team is far too small to insure the success of all the projects proposed, even if another PhD student and/or an MCU joined. Also most of the proposed projects are in very competitive fields.

• The published papers are mostly in journals with low IF (excepted those for their participation in the sea urchin genome analysis: Science and Dev Biol).

Recommendations

• The attractiveness and international profile of the group is currently too low and the primary aim should be to increase the IF of its publications. For this, the group should concentrate their efforts on a single project.

• The committee advises focusing on the topic of the CDKs involved in splicing and to use sea urchin to give added specificity to the group's work. The CDK11/12/13 project seems to be well adapted to this task. Sea Urchin possesses one CDK11, only one paralogue of the CDK12/13, only one cycline L and one cyclin L/Kr uncharacterized. Those CDKs are involved in RNA splicing, that is to say, only one biological mechanism. Furthermore, the team has already developed several interesting collaborations on this subject, at the national and international level.

• To solve the issue of insufficient student recruitment, the committee advises seeking to increase the number of foreign students in “co-tutelle” (Chile appears as a good source).

Group « Molecular regulation of the cell cycle »

Background

In the wake of the untimely death of the former head of the research unit, his group organised the work in order to complete the ongoing projects. The personnel of the group decreased with time to a present total of 4: a senior scientist and three senior technical staff (Ingénieurs), who only work part-time in the group.

Strength of the group

This is the only group maintaining an activity on the starfish oocyte in Banyuls. Besides its historical importance in Banyuls, this model is well adapted to the study of cell cycle regulation, in part because of its lower genetic redundancy compared to the vertebrates.

Weaknesses of the group

• The project presented by the group is very unfocused and lacks both a clearly formulated long-term goal and a scientific vision. For the committee, working on the starfish orthologues of factors that have been well characterised in other systems (eg Maskin, cyclins) is unlikely to have a major impact in the field, and is thus of little interest.

• Neither students nor post-docs have been recruited in the group since A. Picard's death. A young CR2 scientist left the group when Picard's health declined. In light of the weakness of the projects, the likelihood of recruiting a young scientist, who would bring a new impetus, appears low.

• The head of the group has very heavy teaching duties, which severely reduce his ability to give scientific guidance to his group. This translates into publications in second or third tier journals. The committee also regrets the absence of publications in which the group leader is senior author.

• The committee found very surprising that this very small and not very productive group contains 3 high-level technical staff, while a more recently arrived group has no technical support. The space occupied by this group is not in keeping with its size, productivity or promise.

Recommendation

In the absence of clear prospects in terms of projects, recruitments and scientific guidance, the committee recommends that the activity of this group be discontinued. The resources (technical staff, equipment and lab/office space) should be redistributed among the groups that need them most. The group leader should discuss with the head of the unit about joining, physically and in terms of projects, one of the other 4 research teams.

10

- -

Laboratoire Modeles en Biologie Cellulaire et Evolutive

Professeur Gilles Bneuf Directeur

UMR 7628 Avenue Fontaule BP44

66651 Banyuls-sur-mer cedex Tel: 046888 73 32: Fax: 0468887398

gboeuf@obs-banyuls.fl·

5 mai 2008

Reference: AER P06 043-UMR7628-JCG-VI

Generalites sur l'Unite Nous sommes en accord avec les 4 premiers points de l' « Overall appreciation », rnerne si nous avons deploye beaucoup d'efforts (mise a disposition d'un poste de Professeur) pour tenter de trouver un Directeur exterieur. Un directeur d'origine interne fait maintenant 1'unanimite au sein de 1'Unite. La comparaison avec 1'Unite de biologie cellulaire de Villefranche, par ailleurs excellente, est hasardeuse car les domaines de recherche ne se recouvrent que partiellement. De plus, l'historique, l'action et l'engagement des directions locales anterieures ont fait beaucoup pour expliquer la situation actuelle de chacune des trois stations marines de 1'UPMC. Aussi, quand le terme « direction» apparait dans le rapport AERES, nous ne savons pas s'il est fait reference ala direction de l'unite ou ala direction de l'Observatoire. L'UMR 7628 a fonctionne durant les quatre annees ecoulees (comme auparavant) avec la mise en commun d'une grande partie de la dotation CNRS pour assurer l'achat des consommables et la mutualisation de beaucoup d'efforts. Par exemple une attention tres importante a ete portee au sein de l'Unite aux conditions de travail, a l'hygiene et a la securite. Les trois ingenieurs affectes au projet « Regulation moleculaire du cycle cellulaire » ont ete particulierernent presents pour ces actions au service de tous et ont fortement contribue a les assurer. Les approches dans le passe en matiere de cycle cellulaire ont en effet ete le « fer de lance» des activites scientifiques mais 1'Unite abordait aussi, depuis sa creation en 1998, de nombreux autres domaines. Nous sommes surpris que le groupe d'H Moreau, merne s'il a demande son rattachement al'autre Unite de l'Observatoire dans le futur, n'ait pas ete analyse ici. II a beneficie de tous les services communs mis en place dans l'Unite et sa production scientifique ne peut etre deconnectee de la vie de l'UMR 7628 durant les annees ecoulees. II n'est par ailleurs fait aucune mention au nombre et a la qualite des contrats obtenus sur l'exercice passe (ANR, Europe, NIH, Ifremer, Ligue, ARC ... ), pourtant Ie reflet du dynamisme de 1'Unite. Divers chercheurs de I'Unite ont souvent ete invites dans les grandes conferences internationales. Les activites de vulgarisation et de diffusion vers les medias, les administrations (formation des grands corps de 1'Etat, IFORE ... ), le grand public (ouvrages, livres, articles, conferences ... ) ne sont mentionnees nulle part et nous paraissent pourtant, en plus de la recherche et de l'enseignement, tres valorisantes pour I'Unite. II en est de merne pour la participation aux grandes instances d'organisation et d'evaluation de la recherche en France et a l'etranger, par exemple les presidences de Conseil scientifique de grands organismes, le CN du CNRS, divers autres Comites ...

Le basculement de certains ingenieurs de l'UMR vers les plateformes communes de l'UMS peut etre envisage. Nous aurions aime une articulation plus etroite entre les rapports emis sur l'UMS et celui sur notre Unite, car nous contribuons massivement, par les personnels de I'UMR, au fonctionnement des plateformes generales qui y sont decrites et pour lesquelles nous sommes extrernement favorables. Par ailleurs, un Plan de Formation ambitieux a ete mis en place et realise. La question du faible nombre de thesards est recurrente a Banyuls et est liee a notre difficulte d'y recruter des etudiants de longue duree, Elle n'est pas specifique de l'Unite. Remarques specifiques aux equipes

Pour I'equipe de FY Bouget : Il est mentionne que l'equipe est isolee au sein du laboratoire Arago. S'il est vrai que de nouvelles actions intra- et inter- UMRs pourraient etre envisagees, sous reserve d'un accroissement du potentiel humain, il faut neanmoins deja noter l'existence d'une action transversale en collaboration avec Fabien Joux (UMR7621) sur l'effet de l'Environnement sur la Physiologie d'Ostreococcus, financee par le programme EC2CO et le co-encadrement d'une etudiante de Master 2 en 2008. Le comite evoque la necessite d'une analyse prospective pour identifier les lignes de recherche d'avenir chez Ostreococcus. Cette idee est tres interessante, mais sous quelle(s) formes et dans quel contexte, le cornite envisage t'il cette reflexion?

Pour Pequipe de H Escriva : Pas de remarque particuliere

Pour I'equipe d'AM Geneviere : Nous notons avec satisfaction la reconnaissance par l' AERES i) de l'expertise de I'equipe dans I'etude de la fonction des CDKs et ii) de son integration dans la cornmunaute internationale travaillant sur le modele oursin. Les rapporteurs mentionnent un nombre de questions posees peu raisonnable compte tenu de la taille de I'equipe (l CR, 1 technicienne et 2 etudiants). Globalement nous en posons effectivement deux: 1) quels sont les mecanismes qui regulent l'initiation de la premiere replication de l'ADN chez l'oursin apres fecondation ? 2) quelle est la fonction de CDKI3, une nouvelle kinase identifiee par I' equipe ? Le premier axe correspond au sujet de recherche initial de l'equipe, le seul que le comite d'evaluation quadriennal precedent (l ere evaluation de ce groupe) suggerait en 2004 de poursuivre. Son evolution necessitait alors la creation d'outils genomiques pour l'oursin. Les efforts dans ce sens ont conduit a des avancees significatives, comme le souligne l' AERES, puis des resultats interessants sur le theme proprement dit. Deux theses sont actuellement en cours dont I'une en co-tutelle avec un groupe chilien (UDEC) avec lequel nous avons developpe une etroite collaboration soutenue par les tutelles. Le deuxieme theme, issu du premier, concerne la kinase CDKI3. Grace a notre perseverance sur ce theme, nous avons determine la fonction cellulaire de cette nouvelle kinase: le controle de l'epissage des ARNm. Notre objectif est maintenant de preciser ce mecanisme d'action. Comme le souligne le rapport de I' AERES, les perspectives qui s'ouvrent sont interessantes, en particulier grace aux collaborations que nous avons mises en place au niveau national et international. Clairement, l'adjonction d'un chercheur ou post-doctorant supplementaire rendrait notre equipe plus performante. Un doctorant de plus est egalement indispensable, il fera l'objet du pro chain recrutement, ne souhaitant volontairement pas encadrer simultanement plus de deux doctorants.

II est par ailleurs bien evident que I'equipe vise a publier dans des journaux a haut IF. Cependant, compte tenu de sa taille, celle-ci doit jongler entre la necessite de publier au plus vite pour le besoin des doctorants impliques et celle de cumuler les donnees pour cibler de meilleurs joumaux.

Pour I'equipe de J Falcon: Nous remercions le comite pour ses remarques concernant notre expertise dans le

domaine qui nous interesse, l'originalite de l'approche evolutive et notre capacite a mener a bien les « challenging issues ».

Si la taille de notre equipe parait adequate, sa productivite ne peut pas ne pas etre affectee par le fait que deux de ses composantes sont des enseignants-chercheurs (Pr et MC) avec des charges lourdes d'enseignement et des responsabilites internes (direction d'UMR, supervision de service commun) et externes (organismes et instances de recherche nationaux). Malgre cela, nos publications sont, en effet, nombreuses, resultat du travail acharne du groupe. Nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec I'affirmation selon laquelle elles sont dispersees, la majorite se rapportant aux deux thematiques que Ie cornite preconise de mettre en avant. Entin, si l'on tient comme seul critere le facteur d'impact d'une revue, il est clair que certaines se situent juste un peu au dessus la moyenne ('J Neuroendocrinology', 'Exp Eye Res '). D'autres, comme 'Trends Endocrinol Metab' et 'Endocrinology' ont des facteurs d'impact largement au dessus et se situent, dans la discipline, dans les 10 premieres (sur 93) derriere plusieurs revues specialisees de diabetologie, osteopathie ou cliniques. De plus, un de nos articles dans Endocrinology a fait l'objet d'un 'highlight' dans la revue generaliste 'Endocrine News' qui nous a valu les felicitations de nos collegues endocrinologistes. Enfin, bien que non cotee, une publication dans la serie 'Fish Physiol' fait reference dans le domaine.

La difficulte a identifier la ligne conductrice de notre recherche tient peut-etre au choix de presentation adopte et a ce que plusieurs pistes de recherches se sont offertes a nous. Notre interet concernant l'impact des facteurs du milieu sur les regulations neuroendocrines inclut le role de la temperature. En effet ce facteur environnemental joue un role primordial chez les ectothermes. Le cote «global warming» n'est done pas «opportuniste », il est une des applications possible, tout comme l'aspect biotechnologique que le comite aurait pu aussi souligner. L'approche temperature ne represente qu'une partie, soutenue par une ANR, du projet 'evolution', dont le cornite a souligne qu'il pourrait « potentially answer important questions. ».

Si l'aspect « musaraigne » a pu apparaitre comme un heritage historique, car resultant d'une collaboration avec une equipe presente a la creation de I'unite, ce sont seulement les caracteristiques biologiques du modele en termes de rythmes et de duree de vie qui ont justifie notre interet. II est vrai que ce projet disperse nos efforts; le depart a la retraire en 2007 du DR en charge de cette partie et la reorganisation de l'infrastructure qui accueillait nos elevages au sein de I'OOB, nous conduit a arreter cette ligne de recherche. Les resultats originaux deja obtenus seront publies. Entin, nous n'avons jamais travaille sur le modele Suncus etruscus mais sur Crocidura russula et nous ne comprenons pas ce qui justifie I'affirmation selon laquelle la musaraigne est moins adaptee que la souris pour les etudes sur le vieillissement ?

Nous sommes d'accord pour dire qu'il faut accroitre les interactions avec le groupe dirige par FY Bouget. II y a une volonte mutuelle d'interagir; cependant, son equipe s'interesse aux mecanismes de l'horloge chez un unicellulaire et la notre a un signal de sortie de l'horloge des vertebres, implique dans des regulations neuroendocrines. Ces aspects de la chronobiologie sont totalement differents, ce qui laisse peu de place a des interactions autres qu'intellectuelles. Pour ce qui est de l'autre equipe recernment arrivee dans l'UMR (H

Escriva), nous avons mis a sa disposition nos locaux (paillasses, aquarium) et une partie du temps technique d'un AI, et la volonte de collaboration s'est deja rnanifestee par une publication en commun.

Nous ne comprenons pas la remarque "The potential impact of research on the melatonin system should be reevaluated in the light ofthe tremendous progress made during the last 10 years in the field of chronobiology." Qu'entend-on par 'chronobiologie'? S'il s'agit d'horloges circadiennes, ce n'est pas notre domaine de recherches. S'il s'agit de la melatonine en tant que messager endocrine des horloges chez les vertebres ectothermes, nous pensons etre dans l'actualite de notre discipline, comme en temoignent le nombre d'invitations a donner des conferences de niveau international (,Gordon Conferences') ou a ecrire des revues; un Trends en 2007 n'aurait pas ete accepte pour publication s'il n'avait pas ete a la pointe de la bibliographie et de la prospective.

En resume, nous sommes d'accord avec le comite pour ce qui est d'identifier nos principales lignes de recherche dans (1) I'evolution de la voie de synthese de la melatonine et (2) les aspects photoperiode et developpement endocrine. Le second sujet sintegre dans celui, plus large, concernant les effets de la melatonine sur l'axe endocrinien. Ces travaux ont justifie 4 annees de contrats passes avec l'Ifremer et la creation du GDR 2821 (en cours). Ce dernier interesse aujourd'hui deux equipes etrangeres (U. Cadiz, Espagne; U. Tromso, Norvege).

Pour l' equipe de G Peaucellier : L'equipe "Regulation rnoleculaire du cycle cellulaire" prend acte de l'avis defavorable du comite sur la continuation de son activite. Ce groupe etait conscient que la viabilite de son projet etait tributaire d'un renforcement de l'effectif chercheur ou de l'adossement a une nouvelle equipe. Ceci est visiblement exclu par le cornite. Ces positions etant partagees par le porteur du projet d'UMR, la thernatique sera done abandonnee et le responsable du groupe a pris la decision de se retirer du projet d'UMR. Le groupe note enfin la presence dans ce rapport de certains debordements infondes de critique a son egard: sur le plan scientifique (13 publications passees sous silence, dont une signee en dernier auteur par l'actuel responsable, publication dans Developmental Biology consideree ici comme revue de Zerne rang alors qu'elle est presentee comme de bon facteur d'impact au credit d'un autre groupe), sur le plan de l'espace occupe, OU sont manifestement consideres comme specifiques au groupe des locaux majoritairement d'usage commun, et sur le plan de l'aide technique OU l'implication dans les taches d'interet commun a l'ensemble de l'UMR est totalement passee sous silence. La volonte, affichee par ailleurs, d'artribuer davantage d'espace de travail a un groupe et d'aide technique a un autre, qui correspond a des besoins Iegitimes, aurait pu se passer de tels abus.