Roadmap to a One Health agenda 2030

The current fragmented framework of health governance for humans, animals and environment, together with the conventional linear approach to solving current health problems, is failing to meet today's health challenges and is proving unsustainable. Advances in healthcare depend increasingly on intensive interventions, technological developments and expensive pharmaceuticals. The disconnect grows between human health, animal health and environmental and ecosystems health. Human development gains have come with often unrecognized negative externalities affecting ecosystems. Deterioration in biodiversity and ecosystem services threatens to reverse the health gains of the last century. A paradigm shift is urgently required to de-sectoralize human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and to take a more integrated approach to health, One Health (OH). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a framework and unique opportunity for this. Through analysing individual SDGs, we argue the feasibility of an OH approach towards achieving them. Feasibility assessments and outcome evaluations are often constrained by sectoral politics within a national framework, historic possession of expertise, as well as tried and tested metrics. OH calls for a better understanding, acceptance and use of a broader and transdisciplinary set of assessment metrics. Key objectives of OH are presented: that humans reconnect with our natural past and accept our place in, and dependence on our planet's ecosystems; and that we recognize our dependence on ecosystem services, the impact of our development thereon and accept our responsibility towards future generations to address this. Several action points are proposed to meet these objectives.peer-reviewe

Invited review: Selective treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle

Treatment of clinical mastitis (CM) and use of antimicrobials for dry cow therapy are responsible for the majority of animal-defined daily doses of antimicrobial use (AMU) on dairy farms. However, advancements made in the last decade have enabled excluding nonsevere CM cases from antimicrobial treatment that have a high probability of cure without antimicrobials (no bacterial causes or gram-negative, excluding Klebsiella spp.) and cases with a low bacteriological cure rate (chronic cases). These advancements include availability of rapid diagnostic tests and improved udder health management practices, which reduced the incidence and infection pressure of contagious CM pathogens. This review informed an evidence-based protocol for selective CM treatment decisions based on a combination of rapid diagnostic test results, review of somatic cell count and CM records, and elucidated consequences in terms of udder health, AMU, and farm economics. Relatively fast identification of the causative agent is the most important factor in selective CM treatment protocols. Many reported studies did not indicate detrimental udder health consequences (e.g., reduced clinical or bacteriological cures, increased somatic cell count, increased culling rate, or increased recurrence of CM later in lactation) after initiating selective CM treatment protocols using on-farm testing. The magnitude of AMU reduction following a selective CM treatment protocol implementation depended on the causal pathogen distribution and protocol characteristics. Uptake of selective treatment of nonsevere CM cases differs across regions and is dependent on management systems and adoption of udder health programs. No economic losses or animal welfare issues are expected when adopting a selective versus blanket CM treatment protocol. Therefore, selective CM treatment of nonsevere cases can be a practical tool to aid AMU reduction on dairy farms

Paleodistributions and Comparative Molecular Phylogeography of Leafcutter Ants (Atta spp.) Provide New Insight into the Origins of Amazonian Diversity

The evolutionary basis for high species diversity in tropical regions of the world remains unresolved. Much research has focused on the biogeography of speciation in the Amazon Basin, which harbors the greatest diversity of terrestrial life. The leading hypotheses on allopatric diversification of Amazonian taxa are the Pleistocene refugia, marine incursion, and riverine barrier hypotheses. Recent advances in the fields of phylogeography and species-distribution modeling permit a modern re-evaluation of these hypotheses. Our approach combines comparative, molecular phylogeographic analyses using mitochondrial DNA sequence data with paleodistribution modeling of species ranges at the last glacial maximum (LGM) to test these hypotheses for three co-distributed species of leafcutter ants (Atta spp.). The cumulative results of all tests reject every prediction of the riverine barrier hypothesis, but are unable to reject several predictions of the Pleistocene refugia and marine incursion hypotheses. Coalescent dating analyses suggest that population structure formed recently (Pleistocene-Pliocene), but are unable to reject the possibility that Miocene events may be responsible for structuring populations in two of the three species examined. The available data therefore suggest that either marine incursions in the Miocene or climate changes during the Pleistocene—or both—have shaped the population structure of the three species examined. Our results also reconceptualize the traditional Pleistocene refugia hypothesis, and offer a novel framework for future research into the area

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

Integrated approaches to health : concepts and experiences in framing, integration and evaluation of One Health and EcoHealth

Integrated approaches to health address health challenges arising from the intertwined spheres of humans, animals and ecosystems. This eBook is the product of an interdisciplinary effort to establish how One Health, EcoHealth and other integrated approaches to health are conceptualized, framed, implemented and evaluated today. It supplements the handbook for the evaluation of One Health, published by the COST Action “Network for Evaluation of One Health (NEOH)” with in depth reflections on the theory behind integrated approaches to health and One Health more specifically, a brief version of the NEOH evaluation framework, a supplementary evaluation approach, and eight case studies in which the NEOH framework was applied. The eBook is intended for practitioners, researchers, evaluators as well as funders of integrated approaches to health and beyond. Without the outstanding support and leadership from the management committee, this work would not have been achieved. Our gratitude goes to Maria-Eleni Filippitzi (BE), Véronique Renault (BE), Nihad Fejzic (BA), Sabina Seric-Haracic (BA), Nenad Turk (HR), Relia Beck (HR), Luca Guardabassi (DK), Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen (DK) Flavie Goutard (FR), Vladimir Grosbois (FR), Brigitte Petersen (DE), Martin Hamer (DE), Elias Papadopoulos (GR), Ilias Chaligiannis (GR), Gábor Földvári (HU), Anthony Staines (IE), Helen O’Shea (IE), Shimon Harrus (IL), Gad Baneth (IL), Valeria Grieco (IT), Maurizio Aragrande (vice chair, IT), Jovita Mažeikienė (LT), Sandra Buttigieg (MT), Elaine Lautier (MT), Helmut Saatkamp (NL), Kitty Maassen (NL), Vlatko Ilieski (MK), Mijalce Santa (MK), Merete Hofshagen (NO), Yngvild Wasteson (NO), Paulo Roriz (PT), Jorge Torgal (PT), Andrei D. Mihalca (RO), Razvan Chereches (RO), Dragan Milićević (RS), Sara Savic (RS), Joze Staric (SI), Mojca Juričič (SI), Pedro Soto-Acosta (ES), Francisco Giménez Sánchez (ES), Ann Lindberg (SE), Josef Järhult (SE), Jakob Zinsstag (CH), Simon Rüegg (CH), Barbara Häsler (chair, UK), K. Marie McIntyre (UK), Martha Betson (UK), Marieta Braks (NL), Chinwe Ifejika Speranza (DE), Spela Sinigoj (SI), Martijn Bouwknegt (NL), Andras Lakos (HU) and their substitutes Merel Postma (BE), Semra Cavaljuga (BA), Estella Prukner Radovcic (HR), Maria Vang Johansen (DK), Elena Boriani (DK), Ricarda Schmithausen (DE), Maryla Hanna Obszarski (DE), Smaragda Sotiraki (GR), Theofilos Papadopoulos (GR), Barry McMahon (IE), Massimo Canali (IT), Fabrizio Ceciliani (IT), Daniele De Meneghi (IT), Dalia Jurevičiūtė (LT), Miroslav Radeski (MK), Toni Vekov (MK); Manuela Vilhena (PT), Carla Maia (PT), Alexandru Coman (RO), Branka Vidic (RS), Gospava Lazić (RS), Ksenija Sinigoj Gacnik (SI), Juan Gabriel Cegarra Navarro (ES), Asta Tvarijonaviciute (ES), José Cerón (ES), Helene Wahlström (SE), Karin Artursson (SE), Laura Cornelsen (UK), Jonathan Rushton (UK). We also would like to thank the 240+ researchers that have engaged with the COST Action throughout and participated actively. Our gratitude also goes to the Royal Veterinary College in London, who acted as a grant holder.peer-reviewe

The need for European OneHealth/EcoHealth networks

Elaborating from the European One Health/Ecohealth (OH/EH) workshop that took place in fall 2016 and aimed to bring together different communities and explore collaborative potential, the creation of European networks focusing on the development of important OH/EH perspectives was a direct output from discussions at the end of some sessions, in particular: - A network on transdisciplinary One Health education. - A network integrating inputs from social sciences in One Health/EcoHealth actions and networks. - A network aiming at translating research findings on the Environment-Microbiome-Health axis into policy making, with a view to make healthy ecosystems a cost-effective disease prevention healthcare strategy. It was also suggested that a European Community of Practice could be initiated in order to support these several concrete networking initiatives, and to help to promote the building of other emerging initiatives