Evaluation of two sets of immunohistochemical and Western blot confirmatory methods in the detection of typical and atypical BSE cases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Three distinct forms of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), defined as classical (C-), low (L-) or high (H-) type, have been detected through ongoing active and passive surveillance systems for the disease.</p> <p>The aim of the present study was to compare the ability of two sets of immunohistochemical (IHC) and Western blot (WB) BSE confirmatory protocols to detect C- and atypical (L- and H-type) BSE forms.</p> <p>Obex samples from cases of United States and Italian C-type BSE, a U.S. H-type and an Italian L-type BSE case were tested in parallel using the two IHC sets and WB methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The two IHC techniques proved equivalent in identifying and differentiating between C-type, L-type and H-type BSE. The IHC protocols appeared consistent in the identification of PrP^Scdistribution and deposition patterns in relation to the BSE type examined. Both IHC methods evidenced three distinct PrP^Scphenotypes for each type of BSE: prevailing granular and linear tracts pattern in the C-type; intraglial and intraneuronal deposits in the H-type; plaques in the L-type.</p> <p>Also, the two techniques gave comparable results for PrP^Scstaining intensity on the C- and L-type BSE samples, whereas a higher amount of intraglial and intraneuronal PrP^Scdeposition on the H-type BSE case was revealed by the method based on a stronger demasking step.</p> <p>Both WB methods were consistent in identifying classical and atypical BSE forms and in differentiating the specific PrP^Scmolecular weight and glycoform ratios of each form.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study showed that the IHC and WB BSE confirmatory methods were equally able to recognize C-, L- and H-type BSE forms and to discriminate between their different immunohistochemical and molecular phenotypes. Of note is that for the first time one of the two sets of BSE confirmatory protocols proved effective in identifying the L-type BSE form. This finding helps to validate the suitability of the BSE confirmatory tests for BSE surveillance currently in place.</p

A multidisciplinary approach to estimating wolf population size for long‐term conservation

From Wiley via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2022-10-06, rev-recd 2023-02-06, accepted 2023-05-23, epub 2023-07-28Article version: VoRPublication status: PublishedFunder: EC LIFE Programme; Grant(s): LIFE18NAT/IT/000972Funder: Research Council of Norway; Grant(s): NFR 286886The wolf (Canis lupus) is among the most controversial of wildlife species. Abundance estimates are required to inform public debate and policy decisions, but obtaining them at biologically relevant scales is challenging. We developed a system for comprehensive population estimation across the Italian alpine region (100,000 km2), involving 1513 trained operators representing 160 institutions. This extensive network allowed for coordinated genetic sample collection and landscape‐level spatial capture–recapture analyses that transcended administrative boundaries to produce the first estimates of key parameters for wolf population status assessment. Wolf abundance was estimated at 952 individuals (95% credible interval 816–1120) and 135 reproductive units (i.e., packs) (95% credible interval 112–165). We also estimated that mature individuals accounted for 33–45% of the entire population. The monitoring effort was spatially estimated thereby overcoming an important limitation of citizen science data. This is an important approach for promoting wolf–human coexistence based on wolf abundance monitoring and an endorsement of large‐scale harmonized conservation practices

A multidisciplinary approach to estimating wolf population size for long‐term conservation

From Crossref journal articles via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2022-10-06, accepted 2023-05-23, epub 2023-07-28, issued 2023-07-28, published 2023-07-28Article version: VoRPublication status: PublishedAbstractThe wolf (Canis lupus) is among the most controversial of wildlife species. Abundance estimates are required to inform public debate and policy decisions, but obtaining them at biologically relevant scales is challenging. We developed a system for comprehensive population estimation across the Italian alpine region (100,000 km2), involving 1513 trained operators representing 160 institutions. This extensive network allowed for coordinated genetic sample collection and landscape‐level spatial capture–recapture analyses that transcended administrative boundaries to produce the first estimates of key parameters for wolf population status assessment. Wolf abundance was estimated at 952 individuals (95% credible interval 816–1120) and 135 reproductive units (i.e., packs) (95% credible interval 112–165). We also estimated that mature individuals accounted for 33–45% of the entire population. The monitoring effort was spatially estimated thereby overcoming an important limitation of citizen science data. This is an important approach for promoting wolf–human coexistence based on wolf abundance monitoring and an endorsement of large‐scale harmonized conservation practices