Leveraging artificial intelligence in bioacoustics for animal health monitoring and early diagnosis in veterinary medicine.

Political attention to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has never been greater. Governments worldwide are concerned that AMR threatens to undo modern medical achievements with the spectre of a post antibiotic era in which commonplace infections, once eminently treatable, become nontreatable causes of serious morbidity and mortality 1. With suggestions that AMR and multi-drug resistant organisms are as important as climate change and could cast the world back into the dark ages of medicine, ranking alongside terrorism as matters of national risk 2, 3, the political landscape on this subject has been clearly set. Concerns about AMR and its health impact are, of course, not new and began at almost the same time as the introduction of antimicrobials. In 1945, just after the introduction of penicillin as a therapeutic agent in humans and animals, Fleming warned in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that misuse of antimicrobials could result in bacterial resistance. This prediction rapidly became true with the discovery of each new class of antimicrobial quickly followed by the appearance of resistance to it. By the 1960s there was widespread realisation, and acceptance in the scientific community and lay press, that antimicrobial use (and misuse) resulted in rapid selection for resistance against all classes of antimicrobials. What is new, and has changed the political and regulatory landscape for AMR completely, is the realisation that science is not able to out-pace the microbes. There have been no completely new classes of antimicrobials discovered and brought to market since the 1980s, perhaps not surprising given the relatively small range of bacterial targets and the rapid rate of antimicrobial discovery during the ‘golden age’ from the mid 1940s onwards 4. Although there are some rays of hope, for example the recently reported new compound ‘teixobactin’ 5, the pipeline for new antimicrobials is practically dry. In other words, the solutions to AMR must come from within the medical, veterinary and animal industry sectors by addressing the underlying causes of, and changing the therapeutic approaches to, infectious disease. The political and scientific view that antimicrobials can no longer be regarded as the panacea or ‘magic bullet’ capable of eradicating infectious disease is widely accepted, and it is now clear that the human and animal health care sectors need to respond accordingly. A major challenge for the politicians is that there are still significant gaps in the surveillance data required to fully understand the drivers of AMR in both humans and animals 6, 7 and, critically, to measure the effects of interventional measures to reduce AMR. It is therefore not surprising that scientific opinion continues to be divided on practically every key question about AMR except that it is now a serious global problem causing significant economic loss with welfare, morbidity and mortality impacts in humans and animals. Antimicrobial resistance is a natural phenomenon: bacteria produce antimicrobial substances as part of their repertoire to compete in the struggle for colonisation, space and nutrients. Resistance therefore existed long before the introduction of antimicrobial drugs: the effect of using antimicrobials has been to accelerate AMR through classical selective pressure. That this has happened in both veterinary and human populations of bacteria is not disputed; the evidence for interconnection of AMR in these two populations is, however, inconclusive and is the subject of continuing political and scientific debate with contradictory evidence produced by both sides 8-10. It does appear that antimicrobial use in animals increases AMR in animal bacteria and that treating people with antimicrobials increases AMR in human bacteria. However, current scientific evidence does not allow definitive assessment of whether reducing antimicrobial use in animals has reduced AMR in medical pathogens. The extent to which AMR in populations of animal bacteria threatens public health therefore remains uncertain. The evidence for resistance in animal bacteria acting as genetic reservoirs of resistance for transfer to bacteria of public health importance is also inconclusive. Even for zoonotic bacteria such as Salmonella typhimurium DT104, the links between animal and human bacterial populations have become less clear with the application of sophisticated molecular typing bacterial methods and population genetics adding new complexity to the AMR debate 11. However, the lack of conclusive evidence notwithstanding, the prevailing political and regulatory opinion continues to be that antimicrobial use, and associated AMR, in animals is a driver of AMR in medical pathogens and that controlling veterinary prescription of antimicrobials will help safeguard public health. The ongoing political and public health scrutiny of veterinary use of antimicrobials is not surprising and the assumption that veterinary antimicrobial use contributes to, or is perhaps even directly the cause of, AMR in human medicine is understandable. The fact that the classes of antimicrobials used in veterinary and human medicine are the same 12; that food-borne and other zoonotic infections provide an opportunity for transfer of resistant bacteria from animals to humans; that populations of pathogenic and nonpathogenic animal bacteria may act as genetic reservoirs of resistance for important medical pathogens, with close contact between people and companion animals, in addition to food products, providing opportunity for genetic exchange; and, perhaps most importantly from a political perspective, that in many countries around the world the total quantity (gross weight) of antimicrobials used in veterinary medicine is greater than in human medicine 13, 14, has put antimicrobial use in animals at the centre of the public health AMR debate. When combined with the use of antimicrobials for disease prevention at herd or flock level and, in around half of the world's countries, for growth promotion, it is little wonder that antimicrobial use in animals has resulted in sustained political concern over the contribution that veterinarians and the animal sector in general may be making to the growing crisis of antimicrobial resistance in humans, with frequent calls for restriction or even banning of veterinary use of antimicrobials. Despite numerous political recommendations that coordinated, overarching surveillance of AMR is implemented at national and international level 15, 16 there are still relatively few examples of harmonised and integrated surveillance in humans and animals that allow comparison of data. Examples include The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) in the USA, Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) in Canada, Japanese Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (JVARM) in Japan and several European schemes including Danish Integrated Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring and Research Programme (DANMAP) (Denmark), NORM-VET (Norway), Swedish Veterinary Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring (SVARM) (Sweden) and NethMap/Monitoring of Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic usage in Animals in the Netherlands (MARAN) (the Netherlands). At EU level, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) monitor AMR in the food chain and food-borne zoonotic pathogens, but not in companion animals. In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence about AMR, in particular the key question of the impact of veterinary antimicrobial use on public health, politicians around the world have faced difficult decisions. In the absence of scientific certainty politicians have adopted the ‘precautionary principle’, allowing preventive action to be taken when there is a possibility of harm but where the scientific evidence is not sufficiently complete to allow full assessment. The result in Europe is a continuing European political focus on banning or restricting veterinary antimicrobial use, especially in the agricultural sector, and reducing the total quantities of antimicrobials used in animals. In the political and regulatory environment in the USA, the precautionary principle has been applied somewhat differently with less political appetite for banning or restricting antimicrobials 9. The first active political engagement with antimicrobial resistance occurred in 1968 in response to growing concerns over multidrug resistant Salmonella in humans and animals, with the establishment of an independent advisory committee by the UK Government chaired by Professor Michael Swann. The Swann Report 17, published in 1969, recommended restriction of the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters, which took 45 years to fully implement in Europe, and establishment of overarching monitoring of AMR in humans and animals, which has still not been implemented globally. Almost 50 years on, this report continues to set the political stage in relation to veterinary antimicrobial use and possible impacts on human health. We would do well not to lose sight of the lessons learned in the decades following its publication, specifically that sensible recommendations based on competent assessment of the available, even if incomplete, scientific evidence should not be sidelined pending collection of conclusive evidence; instead the two should progress in parallel with continuous monitoring and refinement as evidence is gathered. The global political thrust in relation to AMR in the human and animal health sectors continues to be that overuse of antimicrobials is the cause of the problem and that reducing their use is the solution. In Europe, most political effort since 1969 has been directed at the food animal sector through reducing the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters and, more recently, reducing total antimicrobial use. It was not until 2006 that a EU-wide ban on antimicrobial growth promoters was eventually implemented, completing a political process that had started four decades previously with the banning of tetracycline, penicillin and streptomycin for growth promotion in 1974, followed by complete bans of antimicrobial growth promoters in Sweden and Denmark in 1988 and 1994. Denmark also implemented restrictions on veterinary dispensing of antimicrobials; decoupling veterinary prescription of antimicrobials from supply remains on the European political agenda and, if implemented, would have significant impact on veterinary practice business models in many countries. Monitoring, and reducing, antimicrobial use has become a key global political driver. The European Medicines Agency monitors the sales of antimicrobial agents for food producing animals and horses across Europe 18 providing benchmarks against which political targets for reduction are set. In some countries governmental targets for reduction in the sales of veterinary antimicrobials have been agreed with stakeholders. For example, the Netherlands decreased sales of antimicrobials by 49% between 2010 and 2012 with further reduction targets agreed; antimicrobial sales in Scandinavia have been progressively reduced through a series of government–stakeholder agreed targets 18. Nevertheless, the estimated consumption of antimicrobials (corrected for estimated biomass) in animals continues to be greater than in humans across Europe as a whole 6. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the concept of overuse as the key driver of AMR may be overly simplistic 19. Antimicrobial resistance is a complex public and animal health issue and there is recognition that integrated strategies across all sectors, backed by political will, stakeholder buy-in and sufficient economic support, are required to control it 1. Although overprescribing of antimicrobials is undoubtedly an important factor, reducing their use in human medicine has not consistently resulted in reduction of resistance for key pathogen–antimicrobial combinations with examples of resistance remaining apparently stable or even increasing despite reduced antimicrobial use. The question of whether phasing out antimicrobials as growth promoters across Europe and the restrictions placed on therapeutic use of antimicrobials in Scandinavia, with associated reductions in quantities used, has resulted in a positive impact on human health continues to be the subject of scientific and political disagreement. Responsible, or ‘prudent’, use of antimicrobials has emerged as a parallel precautionary approach to the control of AMR. Initially, the political focus was on restricting veterinary use of antimicrobials used to treat multidrug resistant human pathogens presenting significant risk to public health. Since 2005 the World Health Organization has published lists of ‘critically important antimicrobials for human medicine’, ranked according their importance with the goal that their use should be restricted in all sectors to preserve their effectiveness 20. This approach has been extended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with the publication of a list of antimicrobials of veterinary importance which contains recommendations for restricting the use in food animals of antimicrobials that are critically important for both human and animal health 21. This list includes fluoroquinolones and third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and forms a rational basis for responsible guidelines worldwide. There are several examples of stakeholder groups at national and international level that have responded to the AMR challenge and shown leadership in producing responsible use guidelines. In the late 1990s the UK veterinary and farming sectors established the RUMA (responsible use of medicines in agriculture) alliance and in 2005 EPRUMA (European platform for responsible use of medicines in animals) was established. Stakeholder groups have now produced a variety of responsible use guidelines for antimicrobials in veterinary practice. Examples include general guidance to veterinary practitioners from the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe (FVE), guidelines on antimicrobial use in companion animal practice from the Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and in equine practice from the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA). Widespread adoption of responsible use guidelines in equine practice is an important goal, coupled with accurate recording of use (as, for example, already happens in Scandinavia), that will go some way to addressing political concerns about the prescription of critically important antimicrobials and cascade prescribing by veterinarians, including equine practitioners 22, 23. It is understandable, given the importance of food-borne zoonotic bacteria, that the political lens has thus far been focused mainly on the food animal sector. It is only recently that antimicrobial use in companion animals and horses has received political attention 7, 24 probably because comparatively small quantities (<10% of total quantities sold each year) of antimicrobials are used in these species 18 and because of a public health focus on food-borne pathogens. There are now recommendations that systematic international surveillance of AMR is established for companion animals and horses and a recognition that the close relationship between people and companion animals may provide new opportunities for transfer of resistance to human pathogens 7, 24. Antimicrobial resistance is now a highly important One Health issue with political impact squarely on companion animal and equine veterinary medicine; it is no longer a subject confined to the food animal sector. Antimicrobial resistance is, of course, also important for companion animal and equine health with multidrug resistant pathogens such as meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causing clinical disease in horses and with evidence of transfer of MRSA between humans and horses 25 and of carriage in horses 26. As would be expected, therapeutic treatment of horses with antimicrobials temporarily increases the prevalence of resistant sentinel Escherichia coli, including multidrug resistance and production of extended spectrum β-lactamases 27, acting as a reminder of the impact of ‘routine’ veterinary therapy on microbial populations. The message is clear that it is time to apply common sense and sound scientific principles to address AMR in equine practice. As a minimum, further surveillance in horses is required, along with universal adoption of responsible use guidelines 28. Irrespective of the scientific uncertainties, AMR is a true One Health issue that is relevant to the equine industry. Whatever the political dimensions of this debate it is essential that the equine veterinary profession and equine industry continue to engage actively with the AMR agenda, promote public and political confidence by demonstrating leadership through responsible use of antimicrobials and monitoring of AMR, and participate in evidence-based practice.

Development of a syndromic surveillance system to enhance early detection of emerging and re-emerging animal diseases

EFSA's assistance for the 2015 Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food (CCRVDF) in relation to rBST

There is growing recognition of a need to redefine traditional food animal veterinary medicine, not only from the standpoint of the skills, knowledge, and abilities required of veterinarians but also from the standpoint of the organizational structures, delivery teams, new breadth of roles, and geographic scope. In the 1970s and 1980s, when we began to practice production medicine, the delivery team included decision makers for the production unit: veterinarians, producers, lenders, nutritionists, animal breeders, and agricultural engineers. Strategies and approaches were geared toward health, welfare, and enterprise productivity. Today, the delivery team includes a broader set of decision makers: appointed and elected government officials, regulatory and law enforcement officials, homeland security advisors, emergency managers, public health practitioners, and CEOs of the biological and pharmaceutical industry. Strategies and approaches are geared toward assuring the health and welfare of animals in multiple livestock industries, protecting the food supply, retaining international markets, and maintaining consumer confidence. This issue of the Journal of Veterinary Medical Education addresses the theme of a changing food animal practitioner, with the area now more appropriately termed “food supply veterinary medicine” in recognition of the expanded role of the veterinary practitioner.1 Several articles in this issue address the need for new directions in health care delivery by species, by livestock industry, and by the full scope of responsibilities for both animal and human health. Others address the need to restructure food animal medicine clinical experiences. This article takes a somewhat different approach, addressing needs and a potential response from a geographic viewpoint. Academic institutions, academic veterinarians, and veterinary students are a critically underutilized resource in meeting global needs for livestock security. While governments ponder complex decisions under a blizzard of conflicting information, non-governmental organizations may find themselves with adequate funding but limited human resources and limited expertise, and people in need go on wanting. Our academic resources need to become formally involved. An effective mechanism to inform educators about the future needs of the profession, adjust academic curricula, and develop a strategy to better utilize our significant academic resources must be identified immediately. “Food animal medicine” has now appropriately expanded into “food supply veterinary medicine.” The issues considered include livestock health and production, product wholesomeness, and distribution and availability of products to meet the needs of global consumers. These issues suggest the need for a comprehensive approach encompassing a vast industry. As veterinarians, we find ourselves employed across all sectors, and we should be a valuable guiding and connecting resource in this food chain. Additional areas of growing importance are bio-security and policy surrounding transboundary, emerging, and bioterrorism-related disease (TEB diseases). Many of the concepts we apply to all three are very similar. The following sections of this article reflect critical considerations toward a hemispheric approach to protection of livestock resources and foods of animal origin. We begin by thinking locally, then nationally, then regionally, and discuss a broad network solution. There is a critical need to consider the role of veterinary education in preparing food supply veterinarians for the future. Dr. Corrie Brown initiates our thinking by focusing on what is needed for early diagnosis and rapid response to a TEB disease; very significant veterinary roles exist at the local level. Dr. Pamela Ibarra reflects on her experiences in Mexico in describing the nature of national responses to protect livestock resources. Dr. Luis Espinoza describes the leadership and projects that are part of the programs of the Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA), a regional animal health organization in Central America. Dr. Everardo Gonzalez Padilla summarizes the perceived needs and discusses a possible network solution. Glenn Slack then issues a challenge to academic veterinary medicine to ensure that the attributes of graduating veterinarians match the needs of society. In an environment of global travel and trade, asymmetric warfare targeting agricultural resources, and rapidly increasing worldwide human populations, hunger, and poverty, the veterinary profession must respond. The profession will look for leaders, and institutions of veterinary education must be among them. THE IMPACT OF EARLY DIAGNOSIS (CORRIE BROWN) A rapid response is required to avoid economic devastation resulting from TEB diseases of animals. However, response mechanisms cannot be activated until the presence of disease is detected. Therefore, early diagnosis is critical. This early diagnosis requires three factors: recognition that there is a disease in the field, sufficient laboratory capacity, and a government with the will to be involved.

Toxicology and “One Health”: Opportunities for Multidisciplinary Collaborations

In the developed world the sustainable rearing of food producing animals depends a great deal on the use of veterinary medicines – pharmacologically active compounds. Their usage is fundamental to achieving a desirable level of animal and public health protection. This is particularly necessary in highly industrialized animal production systems. In addition, their use may be required to achieve acceptable welfare standards. It is important, therefore, that administration of veterinary prescription drugs (VPDs) is under the supervision and control of veterinarians. Veterinarians’ role is also to raise awareness and educate farmers for the responsible use of veterinary drugs. Four randomly chosen agricultural stores in the east of Croatia were questioned as to whether they had sold the VPDs without prescriptions before the new law came in force (30 March 2007). The results showed that 15 different VPDs could have been purchased occasionally by farmers without veterinary prescription. These drugs may have not been administered appropriately to animals, which may result in short and long term effects on animals and humans. Products of animal origin (POAO) may contain residues above maximum residue limit (MRL) with a potential of developing antimicrobial resistance, therefore the risk to animal and human health may have been increased. In order to reduce such risks, and at the same time to enable farmers to use the VPDs responsibly, Croatia has recently enhanced the legislation in the field of food safety and veterinary medicine. Under this legal framework there is a requirement to implement the Veterinarian-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR). This paper investigates the possible harmful effects of unauthorized usage of VPDs on human and animal health and the possibilities to enhance control and supervision of their purchase and usage.

One Health is a concept that sees human, animal, and environmental health as parts of a single interdependent system. The Covid-19 pandemic, its implications reaching far beyond the direct effects of a coronavirus on people’s health, underlines the importance of this increasingly influential perspective. In practice, One Health has its roots in early affiliations of human and animal health science. Over time, each sphere of inquiry evolved to address its own agenda. Recently, veterinary scientists have led the reintegration, extension, and promotion of One Health sciences to address modern-day problems in which health and people’s general wellbeing are viewed as inseparable. A prerequisite is to set out a framework of concepts and principles enabling clear definition of problems, interrelationships needing to be understood, and the level of aggregation appropriate for quantitative analysis. This paper extends the framework by considering economic trade-offs that inevitably must be made in the human, animal, and environmental sub-systems, and the consequences when policy interventions are superimposed on them. The New Forest National Park in southern England is a case where this perspective is essential. Following the Stone Mountain definition of One Health, first a conventional approach linking human and animal health is taken. Lyme disease, Alabama rot, bovine tuberculosis and strangles are examples of diseases known to be of significant concern. The focus is finding scope for socially efficient risk reduction in response to mitigation resource use. Superimposed on the grazing livestock subsystems are support payments for commoner farmers. The financial incentives provided by what effectively are headage payments have caused animal inventories to grow so much that the wider environment may well be subject to adverse spillover effects that merit investigation.

Research School for Animal Production and Health (RAPH) was founded in 1998, as a sibling to Research Centre for the Management of Animal Production and Health (CEPROS). Both institutions were founded mainly because Danish agriculture needed research and researchers who were capable of solving complex multidisciplinary problems associated with impaired animal health and welfare. Formally, RAPH is part of the Graduate School for Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences in Denmark and is formed by The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in collaboration with a group of Danish research institutions. It has its own PhD programme which operates under the auspices of the general PhD programme. It has its own Head, a scientific board, and administrates its own funding. Currently 37 Ph.D. students are enrolled in the programme, and 9 more will be enrolled during the remaining project period. The principal objective of RAPH is to attract and train PhD students in multidisciplinary aspects of animal health and production. The School also aims to encourage and stimulate collaboration between university research centres in PhD training. In pursuing these aims, RAPH is committed to exploring new ways of organizing PhD studies. The RAPH PhD students will gain competence in interdisciplinary aspects of production animal research, with a particular awareness of issues in animal health and welfare. The majority of their projects are planned at the borderline between two disciplines, for example Pathology and Clinical Science. RAPH PhD students will also achieve considerable insight into professional, ethical, legal and socio-cultural issues raised by the uses of production animals. Many researchers today have no or only little idea of the ethics involved in their decision as researchers. And many researchers tend to believe that ethics just is a matter of how well - or bad - you treat you experimental animals. Ethics in Science - is therefore a mandatory course (-or curse, as it is nicknamed by the students..) in RAPH. The course aims at enabling the student to analyse selected ethical and methodological problems which arise in research covering livestock production and health. The ethical problems include general animal ethics; ethics in connection with livestock production; ethics in connection with the interaction between research and livestock production and related ethical problems. Researchers ethics (publication ethics, norms for collaboration) is covered in detail. Finally, RAPH students are expected to become conversant with a wide range of research traditions, including qualitative research principles.

The "One Health" concept, emphasizing the interdependence of human, animal, and ecosystem health, has gained renewed global attention and institutional support from the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Environment Program, and World Organization for Animal Health. Here we underline that some principles of parasitology are embedded in this concept. As early as the 19th century, Rudolf Virchow affirmed the unity of human and veterinary medicine, a vision long practiced by parasitologists through their multidisciplinary work on zoonotic diseases. The classical "One Health" triad (humans, animals, and ecosystems) closely mirrors the complex life cycles of many parasitic zoonoses, where distinct stages circulate among hosts and ecosystems. Parasitology societies worldwide have fostered collaboration among scientists, veterinarians, physicians, and other professionals, embodying some aspects of the "One Health" approach well before its formal recognition. Using cysticercosis as an example, this article illustrates how a multisectoral, integrated framework could support effective disease control. We argue that implementing a comprehensive "One Health" strategy to combat parasitic diseases requires a systemic approach that encompasses not only veterinary and human medicine, but also ecology, the social sciences, and economics. This approach must explicitly consider research objectives related not only to human and animal health, but also to ecosystem health.

The "One Health" concept represents an integrated approach that emphasizes the necessity of multisectoral cooperation to achieve optimal health outcomes by recognizing the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health. In the context of zoonoses, this approach involves the joint efforts of human and veterinary medicine, as well as other relevant sectors, in the prevention, monitoring, and control of these diseases. The cooperation between the human and veterinary sectors in Serbia is demonstrated through the coordinated activities of the Veterinary Directorate and the Institute of Public Health of Serbia "Dr Milan Jovanović Batut." These institutions work together on monitoring, preventing, and controlling zoonoses through regular data exchange, joint risk analysis, and coordinated interventions. Their collaboration ensures effective and timely measures to control zoonoses, thereby minimizing the risk of these diseases spreading in the population. Zoonoses represent a crucial aspect of the collaboration between human and veterinary medicine to safeguard the health of people and animals. These diseases can cause public health crises, highlighting the need for coordinated efforts and information exchange between the two sectors. Legal regulations define the obligations and roles of human and veterinary medicine in the prevention, detection, and eradication of zoonoses. The possibility of zoonoses, whether from known or unknown agents, accelerated migration of animals, people, and goods, as well as crisis situations and accidents, create the risk of disease outbreaks and spread. An integrated approach and close cooperation between human and veterinary medicine within the framework of "One Health" are essential for the effective prevention, detection, and control of these diseases. Prevention of zoonoses involves implementing biosecurity measures and health surveillance on farms and in the environment, as well as educating the public about hygiene and food safety. Monitoring the spread of zoonoses requires continuous data exchange and coordinated activities at all levels, while control requires preparedness and an adequate response in the event of outbreaks. Joint efforts of human and veterinary medicine form the basis for successful management of zoonoses in line with the "One Health" concept, thereby ensuring better protection of human and animal health and maintaining a healthy environment.

Informational resources used by farmers with ruminants and monogastrics for animal health monitoring: importance of sensory indicators

The biomedical research field’s continuous search for innovative technologies has led to improved disease diagnosis, novel drug discovery, and therapeutic interventions, all aimed at enhancing animal and human health alike. In this context, proteomics has emerged as a critical new technology, focusing on detailed examinations of protein composition, abundance, structure, function, and interactions. Proteomics, the study of the entire set ofproteins expressed by an organism, plays a crucial role in disease diagnosis, drug discovery, and therapeutic interventions in both human and animal health. Proteomics in veterinary medicine and animal health is an evolving field that holds significant promise for fundamental and applied discoveries related to the biology and pathology of domestic and companion species. It encompasses a broad spectrum of applications, including disease diagnosis, comparative medicine, pharmacology, nutrition, reproductive biology, livestock production,and pathology. By analysing protein profiles and interactions, proteomics contributes to enhancing animal health, welfare, and productivity across various fields of veterinary research and practice. Experimental proteomics in domestic animals offers advantages over the use of rodents, such as the ability to conduct multipletime-series samplings of biological samples for extensive analysis, allowing for the investigation of experimental and natural disease processes. This review highlights the current application of proteomics in veterinary medicine, focusing on its potential to advance diagnostics, research, and treatments in veterinary science. The current limitations of proteomics are also discussed.

Udgivelsesdato: 14. august 2010

Requirements covering animal, public and environmental health challenge veterinary medicine and the law. In this context, legal and forensic veterinary medicine in Brazil has grown in recent years with significant scientific knowledge. Several animals are reservoirs and carriers of zoonoses which transmit pathogens to humans. Leptospirosis is an infectious disease that impacts animal reproduction and production with negative consequences on animal, public and environmental health (One Health). It is an important zoonosis caused by pathogenic species of the genus Leptospira spp. It is distributed worldwide and transmission to susceptible species occurs through direct or indirect contact with infected individuals. Poor sanitation and garbage collection favor the presence of substrates that attract rodents to properties, increasing the risk of the disease occurring. The World Health Organization (WHO) founded Veterinary Public Health, an area that includes the Veterinary Doctor with responsibilities in public health actions, with an important role in One Health. This literature review was designed based on current knowledge on the platforms Pubmed and Google Scholar, articles and textbooks. We aim to identify, understand and discuss the impacts of leptospirosis on reproduction, animal health, public health, and its legal and forensic aspects in One Health. The disease is an animal, public, and environmental health problem that has seasonal characteristics and occurs in urban and rural areas. It is a neglected disease and is directly related to precarious urban and health infrastructure. The veterinarian plays a fundamental role in assisting legal and forensic legal actions in the field of One Health.

We recorded an index of breath sound intensity (Ib) and the transmission of white noise (Tn) over four lung regions between apex and base in eight subjects with emphysema. The Ib and Tn were recorded over the whole range of lung volume from residual volume to total lung capacity. Each value was expressed as a fraction of the value recorded over the apical region with the help of an analog divider. The ratio of Ib to Tn was computed to correct for differences in Ib due to differences in transmission of sound. The ratio of Ib and Tn was computed to correct for differences in Ib due to differences in transmission of sound. The ratio of Ib to Tn was also expressed as a fraction of the value recorded over the apex. Both Ib and Tn had definite patterns in subjects with emphysema but varied considerably from breath to breath. The Ib and Tn were more reproducible in normal subjects. The magnitude and the sequence of Ib, Tn, and Ib/Tn were also different in subjects with emphysema and normal subjects. The ratio of Ib to Tn is an index of sound production in both normal subjects and subjects with emphysema. We conclude that both production and transmission of breath sounds vary from breath to breath in patients with emphysema. There are areas of both increased and decreased production and transmission of sound. If regional breath sound production (Ib/Tn) is related to regional ventilation in persons with emphysema as in normal subjects, these findings further suggest that regional ventilation varies from breath to breath and is also altered drastically from the normal pattern, leading to a severe ventilation and perfusion inequality so characteristic of emphysematous lungs.