China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Ecology of Parasitism
Published in Eric S. Loker, Bruce V. Hofkin, Parasitology, 2023
Eric S. Loker, Bruce V. Hofkin
Here we hasten to add that the study of parasite ecology has broad overlaps with the rapidly growing discipline of disease ecology. One has helped fuel the growth of the other, and the distinctions between them are often hard to draw. The perspective of disease ecology is to consider how abiotic environmental factors along with biotic interactions among species, including host and parasite species, affect the spatial and temporal patterns we observe in diseases, the mechanistic processes that underlie the patterns and the effects they have. Although its focus has been largely on infectious diseases, disease ecology is by no means limited to that arena. Rather than putting the emphasis of infectious disease studies on particular taxonomic groups of pathogens or taking a more strictly host-oriented approach, it utilizes a more integrative approach. It recognizes that the study of host–parasite interactions can be united conceptually with other interspecific interactions long-studied by ecologists like predation or competition to achieve a broader understanding of ecology.
Geographies of Veterinary Experts and Expertise
Published in Kezia Barker, Robert A. Francis, Routledge Handbook of Biosecurity and Invasive Species, 2021
This chapter has examined the geography of biosecurity through a focus on veterinary experts and expertise. In doing so, it has shown how the geographies of animal disease are central to the ways in which it is relationally configured. In this view, animal disease is situated within and emergent from sets of heterogeneous relations and actors – or what we can call a disease ecology. As the chapter has shown, the disease ecology is composed of natures (such as pathogens, wildlife and farm animals), materialities (such as protocols and farming infrastructures) and social relations (such as institutions and subjectivities). These dimensions of the disease ecology are woven together to configure animal disease and appropriate ways of dealing with it. Like any network, these ecologies are vulnerable to mutations and disruptions that threaten to alter established understandings or ways of dealing with disease. These vulnerabilities also prompt circulations that are central to the evolving geographies of biosecurity. Thus, biological disruptions (e.g. disease outbreaks) lead to the circulation of veterinary expertise and social disruptions (e.g. changes in the nature of veterinary subjectivities) lead to the circulation of veterinary experts while material disruptions (e.g. breakdowns in veterinary procedures) are also associated with circulations and evolutions of veterinary practices.
Introduction
Published in Ann H. Kelly, Frédéric Keck, Christos Lynteris, The Anthropology of Epidemics, 2019
Frédéric Keck, Ann H. Kelly, Christos Lynteris
While radically out of step with the humanitarian ethic of global health, there is a seductive resonance between pre-bacteriological public health practice and contemporary biosecurity preoccupations with disease emergence. Anthropological attention is needed, then, to the shifting material forms attendant not only to the control of epidemics but to the material production of anticipatory knowledge related to practical interventions in the field. Disease ecology is a complex mediation between standardised controls in a laboratory setting and local conditions in the field (Anderson 2004; Kelly and Lezaun 2017; Lezaun and Montgomery 2015). The distributed quality of epidemiological credibility depends on an assortment of practices and techniques, including reference materials, good laboratory practice (GLP) protocols, quality control panels, training, procurement regulations, and clinical algorithms.
Neurotoxic responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to fipronil: multi-biomarker approach to illuminate the mechanism in brain
Published in Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 2022
Arzu Uçar, Fatma Betül Özgeriş, Veysel Parlak, Aslı Çilingir Yeltekin, Esat Mahmut Kocaman, Gonca Alak, Muhammed Atamanalp
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is known as a model organism with easy obtaining its tissues and cells. O. mykiss is also widely used in carcinogenesis, toxicology, comparative immunology, disease ecology, physiology, and nutrition researches (Thorgaard et al.2002). They are also used as biomarkers of the health indicator of the aquatic environment as they are directly exposed to environmental toxicants. Rainbow trout is one of the most researched fish species cultivated for more than 100 years, given its high economic value. Fish are important biomarkers in aquatic toxicology studies, as they are an important component of the food chain and are easy to obtain. (Wu et al.2014). The most sensitive and complex functioning of energy metabolism in vertebrates is also seen in the brain. The use of the brain in scientific studies contributes to the observation of biochemical exchange processes (Soengas and Aldegunde 2002). Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) detoxification in the brain is done within certain limits due to the low capacity of producing Glutathione S-Transferase (GSH) in neurons. For this reason, neurons are the cells most affected by ROS increase (Chauhan and Chauhan 2006). In addition to their neurotoxicity, pesticides affect antioxidant defense responses, resulting in cellular damage, increasing oxidative stress. Similarly, detoxification enzyme activities have been reported to provide useful information about the metabolic pathways triggered by the toxic substance (Sandoval-Herrera et al.2019).
Monkeypox re-emergence in Africa: a call to expand the concept and practice of One Health
Published in Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, 2019
Mary G. Reynolds, Jeffry B. Doty, Andrea M. McCollum, Victoria A. Olson, Yoshinori Nakazawa
Research efforts encompassing predictive risk modeling across different landscape types and scales (including fine-scale, village level analyses) could help to pinpoint potential sources of environmental risk both proximal and more distal to human habitations. Population genetic studies of MPXV could complement fine-scale understanding of virus transmission patterns in different ecologies.Longitudinal studies of suspected reservoirs in disease-endemic areas would inform hypotheses regarding the reservoir status of various species and to generate knowledge about the ecology of the reservoir itself.Ecologic risk mapping studies could be performed to merge nascent theories of MPXV disease ecology with the known biology of presumptive hosts in order to more accurately pinpoint potential sources of risk.Theoretical mathematical modeling studies could be performed to demonstrate whether MPXV transmission can be sustained in nature by a single host or whether it requires multiple reservoir species.Surveys performed among human groups at-risk for primary MPXV introduction would lead to a better understanding of the specific interactions with wildlife that lead to risk for infection.
Vaccines, Apes, and Conspiracy
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2018
The first perplexity is inherently ethical, concerning the principles of responsibility, precaution, and respect for animals. Vaccines are not drugs, which aim to cure an individual, but ways “to modify the state of immunization of a population … to prevent, control, or eliminate an infectious disease in a community” (Mordini 2000). This implies responsibility toward the whole community affected: “When we plan a vaccination campaign, we try to fight against an infectious disease by increasing the number of hosts who are resistant (immune) to the microorganism that produces the disease” (Mordini 2000). Herd immunity refers to the lowered probability of contagion occurring because of the higher level of immunity in the vaccinated community. In principle, if a large proportion of the population is immune, there is a reduced chance of transmission of the infectious agent. If the goal is herd immunity, universal vaccination is usually required. The vision of “interspecies herd immunity,” which is one the scientific cornerstones of Edwards and colleagues (Edwards et al. 2018), would then require us to vaccinate most apes and humans within a given territory, which seems not easy to achieve. In fact, it is impossible to exclude the presence of clustered subpopulations of humans and apes, which could be hard to reach. Moreover, when transmission involves physical contact, such as in the case of Ebola, herd immunity is quite difficult, if not impossible, to reach. A further objection to Edwards and colleagues’ proposal concerns the principle of precaution: “When we raise the herd immunity in a community, we modify the spectrum of a disease” (Mordini 2000). It is an ethical tenet to question ourselves on potential new risks we could generate. We have no idea of the potential impact of a novel vaccine on a population of wild apes in dynamic equilibrium with humans. “Dynamics underlying infections are quite complicated, and vaccination alters these dynamics, changing the frequency, severity, and patterns of disease presentation” (Mordini 2000), potentially also the distribution of the infection among different categories of hosts. After Grmek and Armelagos’s seminal contributions, scholars today speak of disease ecology (Wilcox and Gubler 2005) to point out the complex interactions between different infectious agents, their primary and secondary reservoirs, the accidental hosts, and the whole environment. This complexity provides one of the main justifications to the One Health paradigm, but it also demands a rigorous application of the principle of precaution. Before implementing Edwards and colleagues’ proposal, we need further research to exclude any major risks for the environment, wildlife, and human communities. Current rules on preclinical studies are designed to protect humans, animals, and the environment, and we should think twice before bypassing them. Finally, the use of animals for scientific purposes should strictly comply with ethical regulations, with awareness that wild animal studies are much more complicated and ethically challenging than studies with lab animals.