The evaluation of five serological assays in determining seroconversion to peste des petits ruminants virus in typical and atypical hosts.

Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) is an infectious viral disease, primarily of small ruminants such as sheep and goats, but is also known to infect a wide range of wild and domestic Artiodactyls including African buffalo, gazelle, saiga and camels. The livestock-wildlife interface, where free-ranging animals can interact with captive flocks, is the subject of scrutiny as its role in the maintenance and spread of PPR virus (PPRV) is poorly understood. As seroconversion to PPRV indicates previous infection and/or vaccination, the availability of validated serological tools for use in both typical (sheep and goat) and atypical species is essential to support future disease surveillance and control strategies. The virus neutralisation test (VNT) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) have been validated using sera from typical host species. Still, the performance of these assays in detecting antibodies from atypical species remains unclear. We examined a large panel of sera (n = 793) from a range of species from multiple countries (sourced 2015-2022) using three tests: VNT, ID VET N-ELISA and AU-PANVAC H-ELISA. A sub-panel (n = 30) was also distributed to two laboratories and tested using the luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) and a pseudotyped virus neutralisation assay (PVNA). We demonstrate a 75.0-88.0% agreement of positive results for detecting PPRV antibodies in sera from typical species between the VNT and commercial ELISAs, however this decreased to 44.4-62.3% in sera from atypical species, with an inter-species variation. The LIPS and PVNA strongly correlate with the VNT and ELISAs for typical species but vary when testing sera from atypical species.

Global and regional governance of One Health and implications for global health security.

The apparent failure of global health security to prevent or prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for closer cooperation between human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health sectors. However, the many institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments with direct and indirect roles in the global governance of One Health have led to a fragmented, global, multilateral health security architecture. We explore four challenges: first, the sectoral, professional, and institutional silos and tensions existing between human, animal, and environmental health; second, the challenge that the international legal system, state sovereignty, and existing legal instruments pose for the governance of One Health; third, the power dynamics and asymmetry in power between countries represented in multilateral institutions and their impact on priority setting; and finally, the current financing mechanisms that predominantly focus on response to crises, and the chronic underinvestment for epidemic and emergency prevention, mitigation, and preparedness activities. We illustrate the global and regional dimensions to these four challenges and how they relate to national needs and priorities through three case studies on compulsory licensing, the governance of water resources in the Lake Chad Basin, and the desert locust infestation in east Africa. Finally, we propose 12 recommendations for the global community to address these challenges. Despite its broad and holistic agenda, One Health continues to be dominated by human and domestic animal health experts. Substantial efforts should be made to address the social-ecological drivers of health emergencies including outbreaks of emerging, re-emerging, and endemic infectious diseases. These drivers include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-use change, and therefore require effective and enforceable legislation, investment, capacity building, and integration of other sectors and professionals beyond health.