Abstract:A recurring theme in the epidemiological literature on disease eradication is that each pathogen occupies an ecological niche, and eradication of one pathogen leaves a vacant niche that favours the emergence of new pathogens to replace it. However, eminent figures have rejected this view unequivocally, stating that there is no basis to fear pathogen replacement and even that pathogen niches do not exist. After exploring the roots of this controversy, I propose resolutions to disputed issues by drawing on broad… Show more
“…International organizations (WHO, OIE) may specify periods for maintained control with no detected cases for certification of freedom, but there has been little research on optimizing these targets. Furthermore, should eradication succeed, post-elimination measures ought to be in place to minimize the risk of re-emergence of the same or a related pathogen that could invade a newly vacated niche [91], but this is an even more uncertain area.…”
Section: Knowledge Gapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where cross-immunity is repressing a co-infecting pathogen, elimination of one pathogen may release the other, with potentially negative consequences if the second pathogen is more problematic (note that this may also occur through relaxation of exclusion via resource-mediated competition) [91]. …”
Successful control measures have interrupted the local transmission of human infectious diseases such as measles, malaria and polio, and saved and improved billions of lives. Similarly, control efforts have massively reduced the incidence of many infectious diseases of animals, such as rabies and rinderpest, with positive benefits for human health and livelihoods across the globe. However, disease elimination has proven an elusive goal, with only one human and one animal pathogen globally eradicated. As elimination targets expand to regional and even global levels, hurdles may emerge within the endgame when infections are circulating at very low levels, turning the last mile of these public health marathons into the longest mile. In this theme issue, we bring together recurring challenges that emerge as we move towards elimination, highlighting the unanticipated consequences of particular ecologies and pathologies of infection, and approaches to their management.
“…International organizations (WHO, OIE) may specify periods for maintained control with no detected cases for certification of freedom, but there has been little research on optimizing these targets. Furthermore, should eradication succeed, post-elimination measures ought to be in place to minimize the risk of re-emergence of the same or a related pathogen that could invade a newly vacated niche [91], but this is an even more uncertain area.…”
Section: Knowledge Gapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where cross-immunity is repressing a co-infecting pathogen, elimination of one pathogen may release the other, with potentially negative consequences if the second pathogen is more problematic (note that this may also occur through relaxation of exclusion via resource-mediated competition) [91]. …”
Successful control measures have interrupted the local transmission of human infectious diseases such as measles, malaria and polio, and saved and improved billions of lives. Similarly, control efforts have massively reduced the incidence of many infectious diseases of animals, such as rabies and rinderpest, with positive benefits for human health and livelihoods across the globe. However, disease elimination has proven an elusive goal, with only one human and one animal pathogen globally eradicated. As elimination targets expand to regional and even global levels, hurdles may emerge within the endgame when infections are circulating at very low levels, turning the last mile of these public health marathons into the longest mile. In this theme issue, we bring together recurring challenges that emerge as we move towards elimination, highlighting the unanticipated consequences of particular ecologies and pathologies of infection, and approaches to their management.
“…A). These interactions describe the pathogen's role in the community of immune factors and other pathogens, and hence the immunophenotype encompasses several of the definitions of the concept of the ecological niche . Following mathematical niche theory, the immunophenotype P of a pathogen p in host H in a pathogen community C can be formalized as: with the arguments of F corresponding to the strength, duration, and breadth of interactions, respectively.…”
Section: Interactions Define a Pathogen's Immunological Phenotypementioning
Host immunity is a major driver of pathogen evolution and thus a major determinant of pathogen diversity. Explanations for pathogen diversity traditionally assume simple interactions between pathogens and the immune system, a view encapsulated by the susceptible–infected–recovered (SIR) model. However, there is growing evidence that the complexity of many host–pathogen interactions is dynamically important. This revised perspective requires broadening the definition of a pathogen's immunological phenotype, or what can be thought of as its immunological niche. After reviewing evidence that interactions between pathogens and host immunity drive much of pathogen evolution, I introduce the concept of a pathogen's immunological phenotype. Models that depart from the SIR paradigm demonstrate the utility of this perspective and show that it is particularly useful in understanding vaccine-induced evolution. This paper highlights questions in immunology, evolution, and ecology that must be answered to advance theories of pathogen diversity.
“…Continued immunosurveillance will ascertain whether PPRV is spreading more widely; broadening its host species in a post-RPV world. Finally, we should consider whether RPV eradication has created a vacated niche [57] for PPRV other morbilliviruses such as CDV, or a novel RPV-related bovine morbillivirus.…”
The measurement of virus-specific neutralising antibodies represents the “gold-standard” for diagnostic serology. For animal morbilliviruses, such as peste des petits ruminants (PPRV) or rinderpest virus (RPV), live virus-based neutralisation tests require high-level biocontainment to prevent the accidental escape of the infectious agents. In this study, we describe the adaptation of a replication-defective vesicular stomatitis virus (VSVΔG) based pseudotyping system for the measurement of neutralising antibodies against animal morbilliviruses. By expressing the haemagglutinin (H) and fusion (F) proteins of PPRV on VSVΔG pseudotypes bearing a luciferase marker gene, neutralising antibody titres could be measured rapidly and with high sensitivity. Serological responses against the four distinct lineages of PPRV could be measured simultaneously and cross-neutralising responses against other morbilliviruses compared. Using this approach, we observed that titres of neutralising antibodies induced by vaccination with live attenuated PPRV were lower than those induced by wild type virus infection and the level of cross-lineage neutralisation varied between vaccinates. By comparing neutralising responses from animals infected with either PPRV or RPV, we found that responses were highest against the homologous virus, indicating that retrospective analyses of serum samples could be used to confirm the nature of the original pathogen to which an animal had been exposed. Accordingly, when screening sera from domestic livestock and wild ruminants in Tanzania, we detected evidence of cross-species infection with PPRV, canine distemper virus (CDV) and a RPV-related bovine morbillivirus, suggesting that exposure to animal morbilliviruses may be more widespread than indicated previously using existing diagnostic techniques.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.