4.6 Review

Mycobacterium bovis: Characteristics of Wildlife Reservoir Hosts

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.12115

关键词

basic reproduction rate; critical community size; maintenance host; mycobacteria; R-0; reservoir host; spillover host; tuberculosis; wildlife

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycobacterium bovis is the cause of tuberculosis in animals and sometimes humans. Many developed nations have long-standing programmes to eradicate tuberculosis in livestock, principally cattle. As disease prevalence in cattle decreases these efforts are sometimes impeded by passage of M.bovis from wildlife to cattle. In epidemiological terms, disease can persist in some wildlife species, creating disease reservoirs, if the basic reproduction rate (R-0) and critical community size (CCS) thresholds are achieved. Recognized wildlife reservoir hosts of M.bovis include the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand, European badger (Meles meles) in Great Britain and Ireland, African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) in South Africa, wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Iberian Peninsula and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Michigan, USA. The epidemiological concepts of R-0 and CCS are related to more tangible disease/pathogen characteristics such as prevalence, pathogen-induced pathology, host behaviour and ecology. An understanding of both epidemiological and disease/pathogen characteristics is necessary to identify wildlife reservoirs of M.bovis. In some cases, there is a single wildlife reservoir host involved in transmission of M.bovis to cattle. Complexity increases, however, in multihost systems where multiple potential reservoir hosts exist. Bovine tuberculosis eradication efforts require elimination of M.bovis transmission between wildlife reservoirs and cattle. For successful eradication identification of true wildlife reservoirs is critical, as disease control efforts are most effective when directed towards true reservoirs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据