Search

Highlights • One Health emphasizes the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health. • Wildlife parasites are ubiquitous; how do we decide which are One Health issues? • We propose questions to help to prioritize wildlife parasites in a One Health context. • We suggest principles for taking action on wildlife parasites with One Health significance., One Health has gained a remarkable profile in the animal and public health communities, in part owing to the pressing issues of emerging infectious diseases of wildlife origin. Wildlife parasitology can offer insights into One Health, and likewise One Health can provide justification to study and act on wildlife parasites. But how do we decide which wildlife parasites are One Health issues? We explore toxoplasmosis in wildlife in the Canadian Arctic as an example of a parasite that poses a risk to human health, and that also has potential to adversely affect wildlife populations of conservation concern and importance for food security and cultural well-being. This One Health framework can help communities, researchers, and policymakers prioritize issues for action in a resource-limited world.

The phylogenetic relationships of the G6, G7, G8, and G10 genotypes of Echinococcus granulosus are well defined, but their taxonomic status is currently unresolved. We apply an evolutionary species concept to infer that the G6 and G7 genotypes represent a single species that is different to both the G8 and G10 genotypes, and that the G8 and G10 genotypes are also on different evolutionary trajectories and, therefore, should be regarded as separate species. The names Echinococcus intermedius, Echinococcus canadensis, and Echinococcus borealis have been previously proposed for these three taxa (G6/7, G10 and G8, respectively) and we argue that it may be appropriate to resurrect these names. The correct delimitation and formal recognition of species of Echinococcus may have important veterinary and public health consequences.

In the past three decades, Echinococcus multilocularis, the cause of human alveolar echinococcosis, has been reported in several new countries both in definitive hosts (canids) as well as in people. Unless treated, infection with this cestode in people is fatal. In previously endemic countries throughout the Northern Hemisphere, geographic ranges and human and animal prevalence levels seem to be increasing. Anthropogenic influences, including increased globalisation of animals and animal products, and altered human/animal interfaces are thought to play a vital role in the global emergence of this pathogenic cestode. Molecular epidemiological techniques are a useful tool for detecting and tracing introductions, and differentiating these from range expansions.

The aim of our Opinion article [1] was to stimulate discussion on the taxonomic status of the G6, G7, G8, and G10 genotypes of Echinococcus granulosus, and we therefore welcome the letter from Nakao et al. (2015) [2]. They make two main points, one concerning the separation of the G8 and G10 (cervid) genotypes, and one concerning the nomenclature of the G6/G7 (camel and pig) genotypes. With both these points there are aspects which we can agree upon, but others about which we must disagree. However, the areas of disagreement can be settled empirically with further data, and we hope that such data will be forthcoming soon.