One Health: The global challenge of epidemic and endemic leishmaniasis

'One Health' proposes the unification of medical and veterinary sciences with the establishment of collaborative ventures in clinical care, surveillance and control of cross-species disease, education, and research into disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapy and vaccination. The concept encompasses the human population, domestic animals and wildlife, and the impact that environmental changes ('environmental health') such as global warming will have on these populations. Visceral leishmaniasis is a perfect example of a small companion animal disease for which prevention and control might abolish or decrease the suffering of canine and human patients, and which aligns well with the One Health approach. In this review we discuss how surveillance for leishmaniases is undertaken globally through the control of anthroponootic visceral leishmaniasis (AVL) and zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL). The ZVL epidemic has been managed to date by the culling of infected dogs, treatment of human cases and control of the sandfly vector by insecticidal treatment of human homes and the canine reservoir. Recently, preventive vaccination of dogs in Brazil has led to reduction in the incidence of the canine and human disease. Vaccination permits greater dog owner compliance with control measures than a culling programme. Another advance in disease control in Africa is provided by a surveillance programme that combines remote satellite sensing, ecological modelling, vector surveillance and geo-spatial mapping of the distribution of vectors and of the animal-to-animal or animal-to-human pathogen transmission. This coordinated programme generates advisory notices and alerts on emerging infectious disease outbreaks that may impede or avoid the spreading of visceral leishmaniasis to new areas of the planet as a consequence of global warming

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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