1 Introduction
In general, wildlife can serve as reservoirs and sentinels for a range of transmissible diseases (1). Furthermore, wildlife may be exposed to domestic animal diseases, which can have major consequences for their populations (2). Wildlife monitoring and surveillance, particularly from a health point of view, is a critical requirement for major infection decrease and an essential component of conservation and management initiatives (3).
2 Wildlife vs. pets
Wildlife may be a major source of infection for pets. Rabies, pseudorabies, Leptospira spp., distemper, and canine viral gastroenteritis are classic examples of pathogens that can take advantage of interactions between these two animal species (4, 5). Interactions between the domestic/wild entities may result in epidemics in both populations, the emergence of novel strains or variants, and spillover events (6). Scientific literature is abundant in studies of prevalence and seroprevalence of pathogens in wild animals transmissible to domestic animals (5, 7). Often, these studies include several mammal species. An outbreak of feline parvovirus (FPV-2) in Pallas' cats in a wildlife park in China was recently described by Wei et al., who succeeded in virus isolation and characterization. This epidemic emphasizes the critical necessity for continuous epidemiological surveillance and severe disinfection measures to avoid FPV spread in wildlife parks.
3 Wildlife vs. livestock
The interaction between wildlife and livestock has always been challenging due to the huge range of infections that may be transmitted (6). Wild ruminants and wild boars may carry bacteria and viruses that are under eradication plans at the domestic interface, posing issues owing to the damage that these diseases bring to animal production (8–11). The most recent and famous example is African swine fever, but other infections use similar dynamics to spread, causing less apparent but no less significant damage (12). Recently, a systematic review written by Dagnaw et al., established that the global prevalence of exposure to Schmallenberg virus (SBV), an impactful peribunyavirus of ruminants, is 49% in domestic ruminants and 26% in wild ones (red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, and mouflon) (13). According to the subgroup analysis, cattle had the greatest pooled prevalence of SBV (59%), followed by sheep (37%), and goats (18%). The sub-pooled incidence of SBV was highest in roe deer (46%), followed by fallow deer (30%), red deer (27%), mouflon (22%), and wild boar (11%). Other evidence has reported the presence of Mycoplasma bovis in alpine chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) in Italy (Bullone et al.) and the exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum, Coxiella burnetii, Brucella spp., Chlamydophila abortus, Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP), and Mycobacterium bovis in wild ruminants in Slovenia (Žele Vengušt et al.).
4 Wildlife vs. humans
The incidence of wildlife-human encounters has increased due to continuous urbanization and the loss of wild animal habitats (14). One of the most devastating effects of a pathogen's existence in a natural population is the spread of infection to people. The potential spread of SARS-CoV-2 from wild animals to humans was probably responsible for one of the greatest pandemics ever recorded (15, 16). The presence of the influenza virus in wildlife is very dangerous (17). Alava et al., reflects on the presence of this virus in pinnipeds of the Galápagos Islands. However, wildlife can also transmit the bacteria to humans. For example, Mateus-Vargas et al. have described that American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus) in Costa Rica carry tetracycline-resistant Escherichia coli. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) with high diversity of resistance and virulence elements have been reported by Liu et al. in giant pandas. These factors have major consequences for the design of environmental monitoring programs employing such specimens. When considering human-crocodile and human-panda conflicts from a One Health viewpoint, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance highlights the significance of rigorous monitoring of antibiotic resistance development in wildlife.
5 Wildlife and conservation
Pathogens have a substantial influence on animal populations, resulting in the loss of biodiversity and ecological services. A key aspect of wildlife conservation is knowledge. Numerous studies have studied the microbiota of the most disparate species, which helps to understand the composition of the intestinal bacterial flora and therefore of eating habits, the colonization by zoonosis bacterial etc. (18). Recently, Wang et al., have analyzed the composition and functional structures of the gut microbiota of Himalayan griffons under wild and captive conditions, finding no significant differences in the alpha diversity between the two groups, but significant differences in beta diversity. This work is an important initial step to a larger investigation of scavenger microbiomes, with the eventual objective of contributing to conservation and management methods for this near-threatened species. These metagenomic approaches are useful in providing new insights into the microbiome and virome of wild species.
6 In summary
Domestic animal-wildlife interaction is a growing global concern. Throughout history, wildlife has been a major source of infection transmissible to domestic animals, and when this transmission includes zoonoses, it becomes a serious public health concern affecting all continents. According to the most recent scientific findings, surveillance and monitoring are critical for completely understanding the magnitude of disease dissemination and preventing spillover to domestic animals and humans.
Statements
Author contributions
GF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
PetruccelliAZottolaTFerraraGIovaneVDi RussoCPagniniUet al. West nile virus and related flavivirus in european wild boar (Sus scrofa), latium region, Italy: a retrospective study. Animals. (2020) 10:494. 10.3390/ani10030494
2.
HallidayJEBMeredithALKnobelDLShawDJBronsvoortBMDCCleavelandSet al. A framework for evaluating animals as sentinels for infectious disease surveillance. J R Soc Interface. (2007) 4:973–84. 10.1098/rsif.2007.0237
3.
CuiXFanKLiangXGongWChenWHeBet al. Virus diversity, wildlife-domestic animal circulation and potential zoonotic viruses of small mammals, pangolins and zoo animals. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:2488. 10.1038/s41467-023-38202-4
4.
AlfaroMASRaffoEBustosMITomckowiackCTejedaCColladoLet al. New insights on the infection of pathogenic Leptospira species in American mink (Neovison vison) in southern Chile. Trop Anim Health Prod. (2021) 53:1–6. 10.1007/s11250-020-02469-2
5.
FerraraGBrocherelGFalorniBGoriRPagniniUMontagnaroSet al. retrospective serosurvey of selected pathogens in red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in the Tuscany region, Italy. Acta Vet Scand. (2023) 65:35. 10.1186/s13028-023-00699-6
6.
GortázarCFerroglioEHöfleUFrölichKVicenteJ. Diseases shared between wildlife and livestock: a European perspective. Eur J Wildl Res. (2007) 53:241–56. 10.1007/s10344-007-0098-y
7.
FerraraGLongobardiCD'ambrosiFAmorosoMGD'alessioNDamianoSet al. Aujeszky's disease in south-Italian wild boars (Sus Scrofa): a serological survey. Animals. (2021) 11:13298. 10.3390/ani11113298
8.
FerraraGPagniniUParisiAAmorosoMGFuscoGIovaneGet al. pseudorabies outbreak in hunting dogs in Campania region (Italy): a case presentation and epidemiological survey. BMC Vet Res. (2024) 20:323. 10.1186/s12917-024-04189-3
9.
FerraraGNoceraFPLongobardiCCiarciaRFiorettiADamianoSet al. Retrospective serosurvey of three porcine coronaviruses among the wild boar (Sus scrofa) population in the campania region of Italy. J Wildl Dis. (2022) 58:887–91. 10.7589/JWD-D-21-00196
10.
IovaneVFerraraGPetruccelliAVenezianoVD'AlessioNCiarciaRet al. Prevalence of serum antibodies against the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in wild boar in Campania region, Italy. Eur J Wildl Res. (2020) 66:1–5. 10.1007/s10344-019-1359-2
11.
CortiPColladoBSalgadoMMoragaCARadic-SchillingSTejedaCet al. Dynamic of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis infection in a domestic–wildlife interface: domestic sheep and guanaco as reservoir community. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2022) 69:e161–74. 10.1111/tbed.14277
12.
BrownVRMillerRSPepinKMCarlisleKMCookMAVanicekCFet al. African swine fever at the wildlife-livestock interface: challenges for management and outbreak response within invasive wild pigs in the United States. Front Vet Sci. (2024) 11:1348123. 10.3389/fvets.2024.1348123
13.
FerraraGWernikeKIovaneGPagniniUMontagnaroS. First evidence of schmallenberg virus infection in southern Italy. BMC Vet Res. (2023) 19:95. 10.1186/s12917-023-03666-5
14.
CloeckaertAChaiHLiuQGaudreaultNNZhangW. Editorial: Zoonotic diseases originating from wildlife: Emergence/re-emergence, evolution, prevalence, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment. Front Microbiol. (2023) 14:1165365. 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1165365
15.
MurphyHLLyH. Understanding the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) exposure in companion, captive, wild, and farmed animals. Virulence. (2021) 12:2777–86. 10.1080/21505594.2021.1996519
16.
HaoYJWangYLWangMYZhouLShiJYCaoJMet al. The origins of COVID-19 pandemic: a brief overview. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2022) 69:3181–97. 10.1111/tbed.14732
17.
HuangJLiKXiaoSHuJYinYZhangJet al. Global epidemiology of animal influenza infections with explicit virus subtypes until 2016: A spatio-temporal descriptive analysis. One Health. (2023) 16:514. 10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100514
18.
HirstKMHalseySJ. Bacterial zoonoses impacts to conservation of wildlife populations: a global synthesis. Front Conser Sci. (2023) 4:1218153. 10.3389/fcosc.2023.1218153
Summary
Keywords
wildlife, sentinel, threat, pathogens, wildlife-livestock transmission, wildlife-human interactions
Citation
Ferrara G and Tejeda C (2024) Editorial: Wildlife-domestic animal interface: threat or sentinel?. Front. Vet. Sci. 11:1495580. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1495580
Received
12 September 2024
Accepted
13 September 2024
Published
24 September 2024
Volume
11 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Michael Kogut, United States Department of Agriculture, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Ferrara and Tejeda.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Gianmarco Ferrara gianmarco.ferrara@unina.it
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.