Suchergebnisse

This article belongs to the Special Issue Cellular Stress Response in Health and Disease. ; The interplay of mitochondria with the endoplasmic reticulum and their connections, called mitochondria-ER contacts (MERCs) or mitochondria-associated ER membranes (MAMs), are crucial hubs in cellular stress. These sites are essential for the passage of calcium ions, reactive oxygen species delivery, the sorting of lipids in whole-body metabolism. In this perspective article, we focus on microscopic evidences of the pivotal role of MERCs/MAMs and their changes in metabolic diseases, like obesity, diabetes, and neurodegeneration. ; This research was funded by FFARB 2017 of A.S., ex 60% grants of University of Brescia (Italy) of A.S. and R.R. and Spanish "Ministerio de Economía Industria y Competitividad" (MINEICO) that includes FEDER funds (SAF2015-63904-R) and from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie agreement 721236-TREATMENT of M.M. ; Peer reviewed

Melatonin, an indole produced by pineal and extrapineal tissues, but also taken with a vegetarian diet, has strong anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory and anti-obesogenic potentials. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the hepatic side of the metabolic syndrome. NAFLD is a still reversible phase but may evolve into steatohepatitis (NASH), cirrhosis and carcinoma. Currently, an effective therapy for blocking NAFLD staging is lacking. Silent information regulator 1 (SIRT1), a NAD+ dependent histone deacetylase, modulates the energetic metabolism in the liver. Micro-RNA-34a-5p, a direct inhibitor of SIRT1, is an emerging indicator of NAFLD grading. Thus, here we analyzed the effects of oral melatonin against NAFLD and underlying molecular mechanisms, focusing on steatosis, ER stress, mitochondrial shape and autophagy. Male C57BL/6J (WT) and SIRT1 heterozygous (HET) mice were placed either on a high-fat diet (58.4% energy from lard) (HFD) or on a standard maintenance diet (8.4% energy from lipids) for 16 weeks, drinking melatonin (10 mg/kg) or not. Indirect calorimetry, glucose tolerance, steatosis, inflammation, ER stress, mitochondrial changes, autophagy and microRNA-34a-5p expression were estimated. Melatonin improved hepatic metabolism and steatosis, influenced ER stress and mitochondrial shape, and promoted autophagy in WT HFD mice. Conversely, melatonin was ineffective in HET HFD mice, maintaining NASH changes. Indeed, autophagy was inconsistent in HET HFD or starved mice, as indicated by LC3II/LC3I ratio, p62/SQSTM1 and autophagosomes estimation. The beneficial role of melatonin in dietary induced NAFLD/NASH in mice was related to reduced expression of microRNA-34a-5p and sterol regulatory element-binding protein (SREBP1) but only in the presence of full SIRT1 availability. ; This research was funded by FFABR 2017, 60% from grants of University of Brescia (Italy) and grants by the Spanish "Ministerio de Economía Industria y Competitividad" (MINEICO) including FEDER funds (SAF2015-63904-R) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie agreement 721236-TREATMENT to M.M. ; Peer reviewed

The intensity of surveillance and funding sources varied greatly per country, with the number of animals examined post-mortem ranging from 30 to 5000 per year for general surveillance programmes, and from tens to tens of thousands per year for targeted surveillance programmes. By far the most important funding for WHS was provided by national governments, with additional funding from hunter organisations, universities, research projects, non-governmental organisations, the agricultural industry and environmental organisations. ; Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

© Wildlife Disease Association 2019. Many infectious diseases originating from, or carried by, wildlife affect wildlife conservation and biodiversity, livestock health, or human health. We provide an update on changes in the epidemiology of 25 selected infectious, wildlife-related diseases in Europe (from 2010–16) that had an impact, or may have a future impact, on the health of wildlife, livestock, and humans. These pathogens were selected based on their: 1) identification in recent Europe-wide projects as important surveillance targets, 2) inclusion in European Union legislation as pathogens requiring obligatory surveillance, 3) presence in recent literature on wildlife-related diseases in Europe since 2010, 4) inclusion in key pathogen lists released by the Office International des Epizooties, 5) identification in conference presentations and informal discussions on a group email list by a European network of wildlife disease scientists from the European Wildlife Disease Association, or 6) identification as pathogens with changes in their epidemiology during 2010–16. The wildlife pathogens or diseases included in this review are: avian influenza virus, seal influenza virus, lagoviruses, rabies virus, bat lyssaviruses, filoviruses, canine distemper virus, morbilliviruses in aquatic mammals, bluetongue virus, West Nile virus, hantaviruses, Schmallenberg virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, African swine fever virus, amphibian ranavirus, hepatitis E virus, bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis), tularemia (Francisella tularensis), brucellosis (Brucella spp.), salmonellosis (Salmonella spp.), Coxiella burnetii, chytridiomycosis, Echinococcus multilocularis, Leishmania infantum, and chronic wasting disease. Further work is needed to identify all of the key drivers of disease change and emergence, as they appear to be influencing the incidence and spread of these pathogens in Europe. We present a summary of these recent changes during 2010–16 to discuss possible commonalities and drivers of disease ...