Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background Microbial diseases cause considerable economic losses in aquaculture and new infection control measures often rely on a better understanding of pathogenicity. However, disease studies performed in fish hosts often require specialist infrastructure (e.g., aquaria), adherence to strict legislation and do not permit high-throughput approaches; these reasons justify the development of alternative hosts. This study aimed to validate the use of larvae of the greater wax moth ( Galleria mellonella ) to investigate virulence of the important fish pathogen, Vibrio anguillarum . Results Using 11 wild-type isolates of V. anguillarum , these bacteria killed larvae in a dose-dependent manner and replicated inside the haemolymph, but infected larvae were rescued by antibiotic therapy. Crucially, virulence correlated significantly and positively in larva and Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) infection models. Challenge studies with mutants knocked out for single virulence determinants confirmed conserved roles in larva and fish infections in some cases (pJM1 plasmid, rtxA ), but not all ( empA , flaA , flaE ). Conclusions The G. mellonella model is simple, more ethically acceptable than experiments on vertebrates and, crucially, does not necessitate liquid systems, which reduces infrastructure requirements and biohazard risks associated with contaminated water. The G. mellonella model may aid our understanding of microbial pathogens in aquaculture and lead to the timely introduction of new effective remedies for infectious diseases, while adhering to the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (3Rs) and considerably reducing the number of vertebrates used in such studies.

This project developed a long-term, strategic approach to assess plausible changes to the management of water and the water environment over a 35-year period. Futures research, specifically scenario analysis, was adopted to investigate possible developments within water and the water environment, thus providing the government, its arm's length bodies and stakeholders with additional information to support decisions on management strategies, skills, resources, institutions, positions and policies required to deal with the range of plausible outcomes. 'Futures thinking' has been applied to revise and elaborate the Environment Agency's existing 4 socioeconomic scenarios (uncontrolled demand, innovation, sustainable behaviour and local resilience), as well as to introduce a new reference scenario that examines the impact of developing trends in future intervention. This revision has been shaped by experts from a wide range of disciplines (including social science, water sciences, river basin management and risk management) from the Environment Agency and project partners to establish the implications for managing water and the water environment. The report outlines the process used to develop the scenarios and explains the framework used to analyse the complex issues associated with the future of water and the water environment and for supporting thinking and discussion around long-term strategic options and objectives. This analytical framework takes a broad view of the catchments in England and Wales, and the wide context in which management operates. The analysis considered the most important aspects of river catchments, ranging from upland to urban catchments. This report described the scenarios in detail. It is one of 3 reports produced by the project. The other 2 present an overview of the scenarios and discuss the implications of each scenario for the water environment and water users, respectively. Note that the scenarios and the environmental consequences described in these reports reflect the collective views of a set of stakeholders at the time the work was undertaken (2012 to 2014). The work was completed before a number of significant political changes occurred, not least the outcome of the referendum on the UK exit from the EU. Although this affects some of the specifics in the scenarios (notably the reference scenario), the generalities of the scenarios are still valid. The project was led by the Environment Agency and delivered through joint working with Defra and its arm's length bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry Commission England) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales through the Defra Futures Partnership initiative, led by Cranfield University.

Mismanaged plastic waste poses a complex threat to the environments that it contaminates, generating considerable concern from academia, industry, politicians, and the general public. This concern has driven global action that presents a unique opportunity for widespread environmental engagement beyond the immediate problem of the persistence of plastic in the environment. But for such an opportunity to be realized, it is vital that the realities of plastic waste are not misrepresented or exaggerated. Hotspots of plastic pollution, which are often international in their source, present complex environmental problems in certain parts of the world. Here we argue, however, that the current discourse on plastic waste overshadows greater threats to the environment and society at a global scale. Antiplastic sentiments have been exploited by politicians and industry, where reducing consumers' plastic footprints are often confused by the seldom-challenged veil of environmental consumerism, or "greenwashing." Plastic is integral to much of modern day life, and regularly represents the greener facilitator of society's consumption. We conclude that it is the product, not the polymer that is driving the issue of plastic waste. Contemporary consumption and disposal practices are the root of much of the anthropogenic waste in the environment, plastic, or not. Effective environmental action to minimize plastic in the environment should be motivated by changes in consumption practices, policies, and product design, and should be informed by objective science and legislation. This article is categorized under:. Science of Water > Hydrological Processes. © 2020 The Authors. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Mismanaged plastic waste poses a complex threat to the environments that it contaminates, generating considerable concern from academia, industry, politicians, and the general public. This concern has driven global action that presents a unique opportunity for widespread environmental engagement beyond the immediate problem of the persistence of plastic in the environment. But for such an opportunity to be realized, it is vital that the realities of plastic waste are not misrepresented or exaggerated. Hotspots of plastic pollution, which are often international in their source, present complex environmental problems in certain parts of the world. Here we argue, however, that the current discourse on plastic waste overshadows greater threats to the environment and society at a global scale. Antiplastic sentiments have been exploited by politicians and industry, where reducing consumers' plastic footprints are often confused by the seldom-challenged veil of environmental consumerism, or "greenwashing." Plastic is integral to much of modern day life, and regularly represents the greener facilitator of society's consumption. We conclude that it is the product, not the polymer that is driving the issue of plastic waste. Contemporary consumption and disposal practices are the root of much of the anthropogenic waste in the environment, plastic, or not. Effective environmental action to minimize plastic in the environment should be motivated by changes in consumption practices, policies, and product design, and should be informed by objective science and legislation.

International audience ; EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from ...

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food‐producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non‐prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on‐farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only ...

International audience ; EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase

International audience ; EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures