Integrating One Health: Strategic Approaches to Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses for Researchers and Drug Developers

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive framework for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals addressing the complex challenges of wildlife parasitic zoonoses through a One Health lens. It explores the foundational interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health in parasite ecology, examines advanced methodological approaches for surveillance and intervention, troubleshoots critical implementation barriers from antimicrobial resistance to diagnostic limitations, and validates strategies through comparative analysis of successful case studies. The synthesis offers a transdisciplinary roadmap for developing innovative therapeutics and integrated control strategies that account for the ecological complexity of parasitic disease systems.

Understanding the Ecological Nexus: Wildlife Parasites at the Human-Animal-Environment Interface

The One Health paradigm is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems [1]. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and interdependent [1]. This approach acknowledges that human populations are growing and expanding into new geographic areas, resulting in more people living in close contact with wild and domestic animals, both livestock and pets [2]. Furthermore, changes in climate and land use, such as deforestation and intensive farming practices, along with increased international movement of people, animals, and animal products, have created new opportunities for diseases to pass between animals and people [2]. The concept has evolved from the "One Medicine" approach suggested by Calvin Schwabe, a veterinary surgeon who highlighted the integrated, cross-disciplinary perspective that veterinary professionals could contribute to general medicine [3].

The One Health approach is particularly crucial for addressing zoonotic diseases, which are infections that are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and humans [4]. Currently, zoonoses account for 58% to 61% of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans globally and up to 75% of emerging human pathogens [4]. The approach encourages collaborative efforts of many experts working across human, animal, and environmental health to improve the health of people and animals, including pets, livestock, and wildlife [2]. This collaborative framework is essential for addressing the full spectrum of disease control—from prevention to detection, preparedness, response, and management—and contributes significantly to global health security [1].

Core Principles and Strategic Framework of One Health

Foundational Concepts and Definitions

One Health is defined as a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach that operates at local, regional, national, and global levels, with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes while recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment [2]. This approach is not new but has gained importance in recent years due to changing interactions between humans, animals, and ecosystems [2]. The conceptual foundation of One Health rests on the understanding that a healthy human population requires a healthy ecosystem, which includes everything from the microorganisms living in our gut to our immediate environment and the world as a whole [3].

The One Health Quadripartite—comprising the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)—has identified six key focus areas for One Health implementation [3]:

• Laboratory services
• Control of zoonotic diseases
• Neglected tropical diseases
• Antimicrobial resistance
• Food safety
• Environmental health

These interconnected areas represent the strategic priorities for implementing the One Health approach globally and addressing complex health challenges at the human-animal-environment interface.

Operational Implementation Framework

The operationalization of One Health relies on shared and effective governance, communication, collaboration, and coordination across multiple sectors and disciplines [1]. The approach can be applied at community, subnational, national, regional, and global levels, making it easier for people to better understand the co-benefits, risks, trade-offs, and opportunities to advance equitable and holistic solutions [1]. Successful public health interventions require the cooperation of human, animal, and environmental health partners, including professionals in human health (doctors, nurses, public health practitioners, epidemiologists), animal health (veterinarians, paraprofessionals, agricultural workers), environment (ecologists, wildlife experts), and other relevant disciplines [2].

The implementation of One Health platforms follows a structured approach to zoonotic disease surveillance and response. This includes establishing coordination mechanisms, case recording and disease detection systems, epidemic preparedness and response plans, mobilization of material resources, stakeholder training, and financing mechanisms [5]. Evaluation tools such as the Joint External Evaluation (JEE) and OH-EpiCap have been developed to assess and improve these systems, focusing on aspects such as resource availability, data collection and sharing, and data analysis and interpretation [5].

Figure 1: Operational workflow of a multisectoral One Health approach for zoonotic threat management

Quantitative Assessment of One Health Performance and Zoonotic Disease Priorities

Performance Metrics for One Health Platforms

Evaluation of One Health platform performance utilizes standardized metrics to assess implementation effectiveness across different regions and contexts. The following table summarizes key performance indicators based on empirical studies:

Table 1: Performance indicators for One Health platform implementation

Evaluation Domain	Performance Metrics	Assessment Method	Example Score (Guinea Study)
Coordination & Legislation	Existence of regulatory texts/manuals; Formal intersectoral consultation mechanisms	Document review; Stakeholder interviews	Legislation: 89% (Conakry region); Overall coordination: Limited
Epidemic Detection & Documentation	Presence of early warning mechanisms; Documentation of outbreaks	Surveillance system evaluation; Case reporting analysis	Significant heterogeneity across regions
Preparedness & Response	Existence of preparedness plans; Response mechanism activation	Plan review; Simulation exercises	Varied considerably between regions
Stakeholder Training	Availability of trained personnel; Training program implementation	Training records; Competency assessment	Limited trained personnel across sectors
Resource Mobilization	Availability of essential equipment; Funding allocation	Resource inventory; Budget analysis	Critically low: 9% across all regions
Funding Mechanisms	Dedicated budget lines; Financial sustainability	Budget documentation; Funding source analysis	Major cross-cutting challenge

Data derived from a cross-sectional study conducted across eight administrative regions of Guinea revealed an overall One Health performance score of 41%, indicating limited implementation at the national scale [5]. None of the assessed regions reached the 60% performance threshold, with particularly low levels observed in Labé, Kindia, and Faranah (33%), underscoring major disparities in implementation [5]. The domain of material resources mobilization scored only 9%, highlighting a major cross-cutting challenge [5].

Quantitative Prioritization of Zoonotic Diseases

The prioritization of zoonotic diseases is essential for efficient resource allocation. Quantitative approaches like Conjoint Analysis (CA) have been employed to identify the relative importance of key characteristics of zoonotic diseases for prioritization in North America [4]. This method involves presenting participants with competing disease profiles containing both desirable and undesirable characteristics, forcing trade-offs that reveal the true value of each characteristic relative to others [4].

Table 2: Key criteria for zoonotic disease prioritization based on conjoint analysis

Priority Criterion	Measurement Parameters	Relative Weight in Decision-Making	Application in Research
Transmission Potential	Basic reproduction number (Râ‚€); Secondary attack rate; Spread velocity	High importance	Determines containment strategy and resource allocation
Severity & Mortality	Case fatality rate; Hospitalization rate; Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)	High importance	Guides therapeutic development and emergency response planning
Economic Impact	Healthcare costs; Productivity losses; Trade/transport disruption	Moderate to high importance	Informs cost-benefit analysis of control measures
Surveillance Capability	Ease of detection; Diagnostic availability; Reporting completeness	Moderate importance	Identifies infrastructure gaps and laboratory needs
Preventive Capacity	Vaccine availability; Non-pharmaceutical intervention efficacy	Moderate importance	Directs vaccine development and public health measures
Vulnerable Populations	At-risk group identification; Equity implications	Variable importance	Targets protective interventions and risk communication

A study involving 707 health professionals from Canada and 764 from the United States used Hierarchical Bayes models fitted to survey data to derive CA-weighted scores for these disease criteria, which were then applied to 62 zoonotic diseases to rank them in order of priority [4]. The results demonstrated that health professionals with knowledge in infectious diseases produced meaningful results with well-fitted models (83.7% and 84.2%), supporting the validity of this approach for zoonoses prioritization [4].

Methodological Approaches for One Health Research on Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses

Integrated Surveillance and Laboratory Methodologies

The investigation of wildlife parasitic zoonoses within a One Health framework requires standardized protocols that enable comparability across human, animal, and environmental samples. Laboratory investigations are a key element for the diagnosis of infectious diseases because their symptoms can often be non-specific, and full identification of the causal organism is important to determine treatment options [3]. The following experimental workflow outlines a comprehensive approach:

Figure 2: Integrated laboratory and analytical workflow for wildlife parasitic zoonoses research

Sample Collection Protocol:

• Human Component: Collect appropriate clinical samples (blood, stool, tissue biopsies, skin scrapings) based on suspected parasitic infection, ensuring proper informed consent and ethical approvals.
• Animal Component: Implement systematic wildlife sampling, including reservoir host species, using humane trapping methods and post-mortem examinations of naturally deceased animals.
• Environmental Component: Sample relevant environmental matrices (soil, water, vegetation) using transect-based or random sampling designs, documenting GPS coordinates and environmental parameters.

Laboratory Diagnostic Methods:

• Molecular Techniques: DNA extraction followed by PCR protocols optimized for multi-species applications; for example, assays targeting the ITS1 region for Leishmania species identification [3].
• Serological Assays: ELISA and immunofluorescence assays validated for cross-species reactivity to detect exposure to parasitic zoonoses.
• Parasitological Examination: Direct microscopy of appropriate samples using concentration techniques, staining methods, and morphological identification.
• Culture and Isolation: In vitro culture attempts for viable parasites, requiring biosafety level-appropriate facilities.

Integrated Data Analysis and Interpretation

The integration of data from multiple sources requires standardized data sharing protocols and analytical frameworks:

• Bioinformatics Analysis: Sequence alignment, phylogenetic reconstruction, and comparative genomics to understand transmission patterns and genetic diversity.
• Geospatial Mapping: GIS-based analysis to identify ecological hotspots and environmental risk factors.
• Statistical Modeling: Regression analyses to identify risk factors and machine learning approaches for prediction of outbreak potential.
• Network Analysis: Construction of transmission networks based on genetic similarity and epidemiological linkages.

This integrated approach enables researchers to move beyond siloed investigations and develop comprehensive understanding of parasitic zoonoses dynamics within their ecological context.

Essential Research Reagents and Methodological Tools for One Health Investigations

The implementation of One Health research on wildlife parasitic zoonoses requires specialized reagents and materials that enable standardized, comparable investigations across species and sample types. The following table details key research solutions and their applications:

Table 3: Essential research reagents and methodological tools for One Health investigations of parasitic zoonoses

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Application in One Health Research	Multi-Species Validation Requirement
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit; QIAamp DNA Mini Kit; Soil DNA extraction kits	Standardized DNA/RNA isolation from diverse sample matrices (human blood, animal tissue, environmental samples)	Required for human, domestic animal, wildlife, and environmental samples
PCR Master Mixes	Multiplex PCR kits for pathogen detection; Real-time PCR reagents with different fluorescent probes	Simultaneous detection of multiple parasites; quantification of pathogen load	Validation across human and animal samples to ensure equivalent sensitivity
Parasite-Specific Primers/Probes	Leishmania spp. kDNA primers; Toxoplasma gondii B1 gene primers; Echinococcus spp. primers	Species-specific identification and differentiation of parasites from clinical and environmental samples	Testing against related species to ensure specificity across wildlife hosts
Antigen Preparations	Recombinant proteins for ELISA (e.g., K39 for leishmaniasis); Crude lysate antigens	Serological detection of exposure; assessment of cross-reactivity between species	Standardization using reference sera from multiple host species
Cell Culture Media	Schneider's Insect Medium; RPMI-1640; Macrophage cell lines	Parasite isolation and cultivation; in vitro drug sensitivity testing	Adaptation for growth of zoonotic parasites from different host origins
Point-of-Care Tests	Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for field use; Lateral flow assays	Field surveillance in remote areas; rapid screening of wildlife populations	Evaluation of performance characteristics in both human and animal samples
Environmental Sampling Equipment	Water filtration kits; Soil corers; Automated air samplers	Detection of environmental contamination with parasitic stages	Correlation with animal and human infection data

These research tools form the foundation for integrated surveillance and investigation of parasitic zoonoses. The selection of appropriate reagents must consider their performance across the spectrum of sample types encountered in One Health research, from human clinical specimens to wildlife samples and environmental matrices [3]. Furthermore, the development of point-of-care tests suitable for use in field conditions is particularly important for surveillance in resource-limited settings where many parasitic zoonoses are endemic [3].

The One Health paradigm provides an essential framework for understanding and addressing the complex interconnections between human, animal, and ecosystem health, with particular relevance to wildlife parasitic zoonoses. The quantitative assessment of One Health performance across different regions reveals significant implementation challenges, particularly in resource mobilization and cross-sectoral coordination [5]. However, methodological advances in disease prioritization, such as conjoint analysis, offer promising approaches for rational resource allocation [4]. The integrated surveillance and laboratory methodologies outlined in this technical guide provide a roadmap for researchers investigating parasitic zoonoses within a One Health context. As the field continues to evolve, future efforts should focus on strengthening local capacities, harmonizing practices across sectors, and developing innovative reagents and tools that facilitate standardized investigations across the human-animal-environment interface.

Wildlife parasite ecology represents a critical frontier in understanding emerging infectious diseases and mitigating global health threats. This technical guide examines the complex interactions governing parasite transmission dynamics, the breadth of host spectra, and the environmental persistence of parasitic organisms. Framed within the One Health approach, which recognizes the inextricable interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health, this review synthesizes contemporary methodologies, quantitative data, and theoretical models essential for researchers and drug development professionals. The escalating incidence of zoonotic diseases—from well-known threats like Lyme disease to emerging concerns like chronic wasting disease—underscores the urgency of an integrated, cross-disciplinary strategy to study, monitor, and control wildlife parasites in an increasingly altered world [2] [6] [7].

The One Health approach is a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary framework operating at local, regional, national, and global levels to achieve optimal health outcomes by recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment [2]. This paradigm is particularly pertinent to wildlife parasite ecology, as the majority of emerging infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, originating from animal reservoirs [8] [7]. Factors including human population expansion into new geographic areas, climate change, land-use alterations, and increased global movement of people, animals, and animal products have dramatically changed interactions between humans, animals, and ecosystems [2] [9]. These changes have facilitated the spread and emergence of zoonotic parasites, demanding a research approach that transcends traditional disciplinary silos. Effective public health interventions now require the cooperation of experts in human health (physicians, epidemiologists), animal health (veterinarians, agricultural workers), environmental health (ecologists, wildlife experts), and other relevant domains [2]. This guide details the core ecological principles of wildlife parasites through this essential, integrated lens.

Transmission Dynamics of Wildlife Parasites

Transmission dynamics describe the mechanisms and pathways through which parasites spread within and between host populations. Understanding these dynamics is fundamental to predicting and controlling outbreaks.

Modes of Transmission

Parasite transmission occurs via several distinct routes, each with specific ecological implications:

• Direct Contact: Transmission requiring physical interaction between hosts. This includes contact with infected skin, bodily fluids, or fomites. For example, the tapeworm Gyrodactylus turnbulli spreads directly between guppies (Poecilia reticulata) through physical contact [10].
• Trophic Transmission: Involves host predation, where a parasite is transmitted when an infected intermediate host is consumed by a definitive host. This is common in cestodes with complex life cycles.
• Vector-Borne Transmission: Requires an arthropod vector, such as a mosquito or tick, to transfer the parasite between hosts. The rise in vector-borne diseases is linked to warmer temperatures and expanded mosquito and tick habitats [2] [9].
• Environmental Transmission: Involves free-living infectious stages or persistent environmental forms. Parasites with environmental stages can contaminate soil, water, and vegetation, leading to infection via ingestion, inhalation, or penetration of the skin. Prions causing Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) can persist in the environment for years, facilitating transmission without direct host contact [6].

Network Models in Transmission Ecology

Social network analysis has emerged as a powerful tool for quantifying heterogeneities in parasite transmission. Traditional epidemiological models often assumed random mixing among hosts, but network models capture the structured nature of animal behavior and sociality, which generates non-random contact patterns [10].

In a network model:

• Nodes represent individual hosts.
• Edges (or links) represent pathways for parasite transmission, which can be defined by physical contact, spatial proximity, or shared resource use [10].
• Network structure significantly influences epidemic dynamics; well-connected individuals (hubs) can disproportionately drive transmission, while fragmented networks can slow parasite spread.

Table 1: Applications of Network Models to Different Parasite Transmission Modes

Transmission Method	Parasite Example	Host System	Contact Type Defined in Network
Direct Contact	Trematode (Gyrodactylus turnbulli)	Guppy (Poecilia reticulata)	Physical contact [10]
Faecal-Oral	Nematodes (Oesophagostomum, Strongyloides)	Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata)	Grooming interactions [10]
Environmental/Free-living	Tick (Amblyomma limbatum)	Sleepy lizard (Tiliqua rugosa)	Asynchronous use of common refuges [10]
Vector-Borne	Blood parasites (Hemolivia, Hepatozoon)	Egernia group skinks	Vector movement between hosts [10]

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for applying network analysis to study parasite transmission, from data collection to model interpretation:

Host Spectra and Specificity

The host spectrum of a parasite defines the range of species it can successfully infect. This spectrum can range from highly host-specific (infecting a single host species) to host-generalist (capable of infecting multiple species across different taxa).

Implications of Host Generalism

The expansion of host ranges poses significant ecological and public health risks. When a parasite infects multiple species, it encounters diverse selective pressures and immune environments, which can promote genetic mutations and adaptive evolution, making it more difficult to control [6]. A prominent example is avian influenza (bird flu), which originated in wild birds but has since adapted to infect a broad range of birds and mammals, including dairy cows and humans [6]. This "mixing" of the virus in multiple species provides opportunities for recombination and mutation, increasing the risk of novel, highly pathogenic strains emerging.

Ecological Niche Modeling for Predicting Parasite Distribution

Ecological Niche Models (ENMs) are computational tools used to predict the geographic distribution of a species based on environmental conditions at known occurrence localities. For parasites, the "ecological niche" exists at the intersection of abiotic and biotic conditions suitable for all its required hosts [11].

The Genetic Algorithm for Ruleset Production (GARP) is one model used to predict parasite distribution without complete knowledge of its life cycle. The process involves:

• Data Collection: Compiling known locality points of parasite infection.
• Environmental Data: Layering occurrence data with environmental variables (e.g., climate, topography, vegetation).
• Model Training: The algorithm iteratively generates and tests rules that define the parasite's environmental envelope.
• Model Validation: The model's predictive power is tested against independent data, and a best-subset of models is selected to produce a final, conservative prediction of the parasite's potential distribution [11].

A study on the tapeworm Paranoplocephala macrocephala demonstrated that an ENM built for this single species could accurately predict the presence of 19 related parasite species across 23 different hosts throughout the Nearctic, suggesting shared ecological requirements among related parasites [11].

Environmental Persistence and Climate Change

The survival and infectivity of parasitic stages in the off-host environment are critical determinants of transmission success. Environmental persistence is profoundly influenced by abiotic factors, many of which are being altered by global climate change.

Mechanisms of Persistence

Many parasites produce resilient environmental stages, such as spores, cysts, or eggs, capable of surviving for extended periods in soil, water, or vegetation. Prions, the misfolded proteins responsible for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), exhibit exceptional environmental persistence. They can remain infectious in soil for years, and the disease is "very contagious" among deer, elk, and moose, spreading both directly and through environmental contamination [6]. Similarly, the bacteria causing leptospirosis can persist in water and soil contaminated by the urine of infected animals, primarily rodents, with flooding events significantly increasing human exposure risk [6] [7].

Climate Impact on Parasite Ecology

Climate change acts as a major driver in the redistribution and increased incidence of wildlife and zoonotic parasites.

• Expansion of Vector Habitats: Rising temperatures allow vectors like ticks and mosquitoes to survive in higher latitudes and altitudes. The range of deer ticks, which transmit Lyme disease, has expanded over the last 30 years due to milder winters, with infection rates climbing in tandem [6] [9]. In some parts of Minnesota, nearly 50% of adult ticks now carry the bacteria [6].
• Accelerated Pathogen Development:
  • Higher temperatures can accelerate the replication rates of pathogens within vectors. For example, warmer conditions support faster development of West Nile virus in Culex mosquitoes [9].
  • Extreme weather events, such as floods and heavy rainfall, create suitable breeding sites for mosquitoes and facilitate the spread of water-borne pathogens like Leptospira [9] [7].

Table 2: Impact of Climate and Environmental Change on Select Zoonotic Parasites

Parasite/Disease	Primary Vector/Reservoir	Documented or Projected Change
Lyme Disease	Deer Ticks (Ixodes scapularis)	Expanded geographic range northward and to higher elevations; increased infection rates linked to milder winters and higher host densities [6] [9].
West Nile Virus	Culex mosquitoes	Models predict a five-fold increase in outbreak risk in the European region for 2040-2060 due to climatic suitability [7].
Leptospirosis	Rodents, livestock	Rising temperatures and more frequent flooding amplify spread into human spaces, contaminating soil and water [6].
Avian Influenza	Wild birds (ducks, geese)	Changing migratory patterns due to climate shifts facilitate global movement of the virus, enabling jumps to new species and regions [6].

Quantitative Data on Major Zoonotic Parasites

Surveillance and historical data provide critical insights into the emergence, spread, and impact of major parasitic zoonoses. The following table synthesizes epidemiological attributes of several high-consequence diseases, highlighting their animal origins and transmission potential.

Table 3: Epidemiological Attributes of Major Emerging Zoonotic Diseases [8]

Disease	Year of Emergence/ Outbreak	Causative Agent	Natural Reservoir	Intermediate Host(s)	Case Fatality Rate (CFR)
COVID-19	2019	SARS-CoV-2	Bats (potential)	Pangolin (potential)	Varies (e.g., <1 - 13.56%)
MERS	2012	MERS-CoV	Bats (?)	Dromedary camels	>35%
SARS	2002	SARS-CoV	Chinese horseshoe bats	Civets, raccoon dogs	~0% (Note: Actual global CFR was ~11%)
Ebola Virus Disease	1976 (recurrent)	Ebola virus	Fruit bats	Monkeys, apes, pigs	25-90%
Nipah Virus Disease	1998 (recurrent)	Nipah virus	Fruit bats (flying fox)	Pigs	40-70%

Experimental and Surveillance Methodologies

Robust scientific and surveillance methodologies are the backbone of wildlife parasite ecology, enabling researchers to detect, track, and understand emerging threats.

Key Experimental Protocols

• Pathogen Surveillance and Genetic Sequencing: As employed in tracking avian influenza, this involves collecting samples from wildlife, livestock, and the environment. Genomic sequencing of the pathogen (e.g., the flu's genetic code) tracks mutations, spread, and evolution, informing vaccine development and containment strategies [6].
• Serological Surveys and Pathogen Detection: Used in Chagas disease research, this involves screening human and animal populations (e.g., dogs) for antibodies (serology) or parasite DNA (PCR) to determine prevalence, monitor treatment outcomes, and identify transmission hotspots [12].
• Social Network Analysis: As detailed in Section 2.2, this methodology involves collecting behavioral data on host species to construct contact networks, which are then used to model transmission dynamics and identify super-spreaders [10].
• Ecological Niche Modeling (ENM): As detailed in Section 3.2, this protocol uses known parasite occurrence data and environmental variables to predict its potential geographic distribution and identify areas at risk [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Wildlife Parasitology

Research Tool / Resource	Function / Application	Example Use Case
Global Mammal Parasite Database (GMPD)	A compiled database of parasites and pathogens from wild primate, carnivore, and ungulate hosts. Used to explore parasite taxonomy, transmission, prevalence, and global location [13].	Baseline data for ecological and epidemiological studies on parasite biodiversity and host range.
Genetic Algorithm for Ruleset Production (GARP)	Software for creating Ecological Niche Models (ENMs) to predict species distribution based on environmental parameters [11].	Predicting the potential geographic distribution of a parasite when its life cycle is not fully known.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling	Extraction and analysis of DNA from environmental samples (soil, water, feces) to detect parasite presence without directly observing hosts.	Monitoring water sources for Leptospira or soil in deer habitats for CWD prions.
ELISA/IgG Serological Assays	Detects host antibodies against a specific pathogen, indicating past or current infection.	Screening dog populations for exposure to Trypanosoma cruzi (Chagas disease) [12].
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)	Amplifies specific DNA sequences to detect and identify parasitic pathogens with high sensitivity.	Confirming active T. cruzi infection in a kissing bug or dog by detecting parasite DNA [12].
Phorbol 12-tiglate	Phorbol 12-tiglate|High-Purity|For Research Use	Phorbol 12-tiglate is a phorbol ester for research use only. Explore its potential in studying Protein Kinase C (PKC) signaling and cell function. Strictly not for human or veterinary use.
Norrubrofusarin	Norrubrofusarin, CAS:3566-98-1, MF:C14H10O5, MW:258.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The ecology of wildlife parasites—shaped by transmission dynamics, host spectra, and environmental persistence—is a complex and rapidly evolving field. The One Health approach is not merely beneficial but essential for addressing the challenges posed by these pathogens. As climate change, habitat encroachment, and globalization continue to alter the interfaces between humans, animals, and ecosystems, the threat of parasitic zoonoses will only intensify [2] [9] [7]. Successfully mitigating this threat hinges on sustained collaboration across human medicine, veterinary science, ecology, and environmental science. Future efforts must prioritize integrated surveillance, the development of advanced predictive models like ENMs and network analyses, and innovative intervention strategies, such as drug repurposing, to safeguard the health of all species on the planet [14].

Zoonotic spillover, the process by which pathogens jump from animal reservoirs to human populations, represents a formidable threat to global health security. A staggering 60% of known infectious diseases in humans are of zoonotic origin, including major epidemics such as HIV, Ebola, and COVID-19 [15]. The growing pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) agenda is heavily premised on the potential for such spillover events, with international agencies like the World Health Organization and World Bank proposing unprecedented funding levels exceeding $40 billion to address these threats [16]. The fundamental premise of this investment is that pandemic risk is rapidly increasing, driven particularly by anthropogenic environmental changes that facilitate pathogen transmission across species boundaries [16].

The One Health approach provides an essential framework for understanding and addressing these complex threats. Defined by the World Health Organization as "an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems," One Health recognizes the inextricable linkages between human, animal, and environmental health [1]. This approach is particularly crucial for addressing parasitic zoonoses, where the life cycles of pathogens often involve complex interactions between wildlife reservoirs, domestic animals, human populations, and changing environmental conditions. Effectively preventing and controlling zoonotic diseases requires collaboration across sectors responsible for human health, animal health (both domestic and wildlife), and the environment [17].

Despite widespread assertions that zoonotic outbreaks are increasing in frequency, the evidence base supporting these claims requires critical examination. As noted in recent scientific literature, "many of these assumptions are poorly supported by cited literature, over-simplifying a highly complex set of ecological interactions" [16]. This technical guide examines the current state of knowledge regarding climate change, habitat encroachment, and other anthropogenic drivers of spillover within the context of a One Health approach to wildlife parasitic zoonoses research.

Quantitative Analysis of Spillover Drivers and Impacts

Understanding the relative contribution of different anthropogenic factors to spillover risk enables targeted intervention strategies. The following tables synthesize available quantitative data on key drivers and their documented impacts on zoonotic disease emergence.

Table 1: Anthropogenic Drivers of Zoonotic Spillover and Documented Impacts

Driver Category	Specific Mechanisms	Documented Impacts/Associations	Key Pathogens/Examples
Land Use Change	Deforestation, agricultural expansion, urban sprawl, habitat fragmentation	Cited as cause for >30% of new diseases since 1940 [15]; Concentrates species in smaller spaces, increasing inter-species transmission risk [15]	Ebola virus, Nipah virus, Hendra virus [16]
Climate Change	Range shifts of mammal species, glacial melt exposing ancient pathogens, temperature effects on vector survival	Estimated threefold increase in probability of extreme epidemics in coming decades [15]; New viral relationships between previously isolated species [15]	Avian influenza, vector-borne diseases [16]
Wildlife Trade & Industrial Animal Farming	High-density animal facilities, live animal markets, interspecies mixing at interfaces	Direct transmission pathways; Intermediate host development (e.g., poultry between waterfowl and humans) [15]	Avian influenza, SARS-CoV-2 (suspected) [15]

Table 2: Economic and Health Impacts of Major Zoonotic Pandemics

Pandemic Event	Estimated Economic Impact	Human Mortality/Morbidity	Spillover Origin
COVID-19	$10-22 trillion (U.S. alone) [15]	Global mortality with lower case fatality rate but high transmissibility [15]	Suspected zoonotic origin, precise mechanism under investigation
HIV/AIDS	Not quantified in results	Approximately 40 million deaths globally since 1980s [15]	Chimpanzee to human spillover in 1920s [15]
Ebola Outbreaks	Not quantified in results	High case fatality rates (approximately 50%) [15]	Fruit bats of the Pteropodidae family [15]

Analysis of these quantitative data reveals several critical patterns. First, land use change represents one of the most significant documented drivers of emerging zoonotic diseases. Second, the economic impacts of pandemics originating from spillover events can reach staggering levels, dwarfing potential investments in preventive measures. Third, climate change introduces novel and evolving pathways for spillover that may create unprecedented disease transmission dynamics. These quantitative relationships underscore the importance of developing robust predictive models and targeted surveillance systems for high-risk interfaces.

Experimental Frameworks for Spillover Risk Assessment

The Generalized One Health Framework (GOHF)

The Generalized One Health Framework provides a structured, five-step approach for implementing a One Health approach to zoonotic disease prevention and control. This framework can be applied at local, sub-national, national, regional, or international levels and includes a toolkit of existing resources matched to each step [17].

Table 3: Generalized One Health Framework (GOHF) for Zoonotic Disease Control

Step	Objective	Key Activities	Primary Outcome Measures
1. Engagement	Establish initial One Health collaborations around zoonotic disease control	Identify and engage stakeholders; Prioritize zoonotic diseases; Establish government support [17]	Prioritized list of zoonotic diseases; Government commitment to One Health approach [17]
2. Assessment	Understand limitations and disparities in resources within the One Health system	Conduct joint sectoral assessments; Evaluate existing systems and capacities [17]	Documented strengths and weaknesses in each sector; Understanding of current situation [17]
3. Planning	Develop plans and protocols that include and leverage all relevant One Health sectors	Develop strategic plans; Create technical protocols; Identify resource needs [17]	Multisectoral plans, protocols and procedures ready for implementation [17]
4. Implementation	Implement programs that use a One Health approach	Implement plans; Conduct capacity building; Establish coordination mechanisms [17]	Operational One Health systems or zoonotic disease programs [17]
5. Monitoring & Evaluation	Identify successes and improve upon weaknesses of One Health systems and/or programs	Track progress; Evaluate impact; Adapt and improve programs [17]	Improved capacity to control zoonotic diseases [17]

The implementation of this framework requires specialized expertise and cross-sectoral coordination. Successful examples include Kenya's use of social network analysis to identify relevant stakeholders for Rift Valley fever programs, and Thailand's establishment of a cabinet-endorsed Coordinating Unit for One Health following H5N1 and H1N1 influenza outbreaks [17].

Methodologies for Spillover Risk Prediction

Emerging methodologies for predicting spillover risk combine ecological surveillance, molecular analysis, and computational modeling. The experimental workflow for spillover risk assessment involves multiple parallel approaches that converge to identify high-risk interfaces and pathogens.

Spillover Risk Assessment Workflow

This experimental workflow highlights the multidisciplinary nature of spillover risk assessment, integrating field ecology, laboratory science, and computational analytics. The outputs from this process directly inform preventive measures and policy decisions.

Integrating Spillover Risk into Environmental Impact Assessments

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) represent a strategic policy mechanism for incorporating spillover risk consideration into development decisions. Currently, most EIA frameworks focus primarily on physical and ecological impacts without systematically addressing human health implications arising from altered disease dynamics [15]. Incorporating zoonotic risk assessment procedures into existing EIA frameworks represents a practical application of the One Health approach.

The legal and technical requirements for this integration vary across jurisdictions. In India, for example, the EIA Notification 2006 requires certain projects to undergo environmental clearance, but references to disease occur only in the context of hazardous substances, not habitat alteration [15]. Similarly, in the United States, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires evaluation of impacts from major federal actions but does not explicitly address spillover risk [15]. Modification of these frameworks to include spillover analysis would require:

• Regulatory Revision: Adding specific questions regarding potential spillover risk in project application forms.
• Expertise Expansion: Including professionals with epidemiology and disease ecology expertise on appraisal committees.
• Technical Capacity: Developing standardized methodologies for spillover risk prediction that can be applied during the scoping and appraisal stages.

While practical challenges exist due to the inherent unpredictability of individual spillover events, research indicates that outbreaks follow predictable patterns, making risk assessment feasible [15]. Machine learning approaches are increasingly being used to predict potential spillovers and identify high-risk locations, with global hotspot maps already identifying tropical regions in the Americas, Asia, and Central Africa as areas of particular concern [15].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methods and Reagents

Implementing the experimental protocols described in this guide requires specialized reagents, tools, and methodologies. The following table outlines essential components of the spillover research toolkit.

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Spillover Studies

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Technical Considerations
Genomic Sequencing Tools	Next-generation sequencing platforms; PCR assays; Primers for target pathogens	Pathogen discovery and characterization; Host range determination; Evolutionary analysis	Requires validation for diverse sample types; Must account for potential novel genetic sequences
Serological Assays	Multiplex bead arrays; ELISA kits; Neutralization assays	Detection of previous pathogen exposure; Seroprevalence studies in human and animal populations	Cross-reactivity between related pathogens can complicate interpretation
Cell Culture Systems	Primary cell cultures from diverse species; Organoid models; Air-liquid interface cultures	Simulation of cross-species transmission barriers; Study of host-pathogen interactions at cellular level	Difficult to establish for some wildlife species; May not fully recapitulate in vivo conditions
Environmental DNA Tools	eDNA extraction kits; Universal primers for vertebrate species; Bioinformatic pipelines	Detection of reservoir host distribution; Biodiversity monitoring in changing habitats	Requires careful contamination control; Complex mixture analysis challenging
Data Integration Platforms	One Health data sharing platforms; GIS software; Machine learning algorithms	Integration of ecological, epidemiological, and climatic data; Predictive modeling of spillover risk	Requires standardization across sectors; Privacy and data sharing considerations
Regaloside K	Regaloside K, MF:C18H24O11, MW:416.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
4-Demethyltraxillaside	4-Demethyltraxillaside, MF:C27H34O12, MW:550.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The effective application of these tools requires cross-disciplinary collaboration and data sharing. The Generalized One Health Framework emphasizes the importance of establishing coordination mechanisms that enable researchers from human health, animal health, and environmental sectors to collaborate effectively [17].

The complex interplay between climate change, habitat encroachment, and anthropogenic drivers of spillover requires a sophisticated, multidisciplinary research approach firmly grounded in One Health principles. While significant progress has been made in understanding the broad contours of spillover risk, critical knowledge gaps remain in predicting specific spillover events and developing effective interventions.

The scientific community faces the dual challenge of addressing legitimate concerns about potentially overstated claims of increasing spillover frequency while simultaneously advocating for evidence-based preventive measures [16]. This balance requires rigorous research methodologies, transparent data reporting, and critical evaluation of underlying assumptions about disease emergence dynamics.

Future research priorities should include: (1) longitudinal studies at high-risk human-wildlife interfaces; (2) development of validated predictive models incorporating climate, land use, and socioeconomic factors; (3) optimization of rapid response protocols for spillover events; and (4) economic analyses of the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures versus outbreak response. By addressing these priorities through a collaborative One Health framework, researchers can provide the evidence base needed to inform global health security policies and mitigate the threat of emerging zoonotic diseases.

The One Health approach recognizes the fundamental interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. This is particularly critical for wildlife parasites, which represent a significant threat to global health, food security, and economic stability. Zoonotic parasitic diseases are infectious diseases caused by parasites that can be transmitted between animals and humans, and they account for more than 75% of human diseases [18]. The intricate relationships between human, animal, and environmental factors in disease transmission necessitates a collaborative, interdisciplinary strategy that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries [18] [19].

Wildlife parasitology has long practiced integrative health research, even before the One Health concept gained popularity, by examining parasite transmission across host compartments, trophic levels, and the environment [19]. However, in a world with limited resources for scientific research and public health programming, it is impossible to study and manage all wildlife parasites with equal intensity. Therefore, systematic prioritization frameworks are essential to identify which parasites warrant immediate attention and investment based on their potential impact on human health, animal health, ecosystem integrity, and socioeconomic well-being [19].

Core Principles for Prioritizing Wildlife Parasites

Foundational Concepts

Prioritization within a One Health context moves beyond a simple assessment of human health risk. It requires a balanced consideration of multiple factors affecting all components of the health triad. A wildlife parasite should be considered a priority if it poses a significant threat to any of the following: public health, agricultural productivity, food security, conservation of biodiversity, or the functioning of ecosystems [19]. Furthermore, the demographic and ecological context is critical. A parasite that is endemic and well-controlled in one region may be an emerging, high-priority threat in another due to differences in host populations, environmental conditions, or public health infrastructure [20]. The potential for emergence or re-emergence also elevates priority. Changes in climate, land use, wildlife migration patterns, and human behavior can alter transmission dynamics, causing previously localized or negligible parasites to become significant threats [21] [19].

Key Prioritization Criteria

To operationalize the core principles, a set of key questions can guide decision-makers. These questions, adapted from seminal One Health literature, provide a structured framework for evaluation [19]:

• Risk to Human Health: Does the parasite in wildlife represent a risk to human health? This includes considering the severity of clinical disease, the potential for outbreaks, and the availability of effective treatments or preventive measures.
• Impact on Animal Health and Conservation: Does the parasite adversely affect the health of wildlife populations of conservation concern? A parasite that threatens endangered species or can cause significant wildlife die-offs is of high priority.
• Economic and Food Security Impact: Does the parasite have an impact on food security and cultural well-being? Parasites that affect game species, livestock, or other animals critical for subsistence hunting and local economies warrant greater attention.
• Interface with Domestic Animals: What is the role of the parasite at the wildlife-domestic animal interface? Parasites that can spill over into livestock, impacting animal welfare and agricultural productivity, are particularly important.
• Potential for Spread and Emergence: Is the geographic range or incidence of the parasite changing? Emerging parasites or those with high potential for geographic expansion due to environmental change or wildlife movements are a high priority.

Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment Frameworks

The OHZDP Tool: A Semi-Quantitative Approach

A robust example of a structured prioritization methodology is the One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) tool, which has been successfully implemented in various contexts, including a pioneering workshop in Guyana [20]. This modified semi-quantitative tool employs a multi-step, consultative process involving multisectoral experts.

The process begins with a comprehensive hazard identification phase. This involves a scoping literature review of scientific databases and grey literature to generate an initial list of zoonotic pathogens. In the Guyana case, fifty zoonoses were identified for consideration [20]. Following this, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied. For instance, the Guyana workshop focused on pathogens directly transmissible from Neotropical wildlife to humans, thereby excluding vector-borne diseases from the initial prioritization exercise [20].

The core of the process is a workshop where multisectoral experts from human, animal, and environmental health sectors gather. These experts use a structured set of prioritization criteria to score each zoonotic disease. The criteria are weighted to reflect their relative importance, and diseases are ranked based on their total weighted scores [20]. The final list of prioritized diseases, such as the top eight (tuberculosis, leptospirosis, gastroenteritis, rabies, coronavirus, orthopoxvirus, viral hemorrhagic fevers, and hepatitis) identified in Guyana, is then used to guide national policy, surveillance, and research funding [20].

Table 1: Key Steps in the OHZDP Process as Implemented in Guyana

Step	Description	Output
1. Pre-workshop Literature Review	Exhaustive search of peer-reviewed publications and scholarly reports on zoonotic pathogens from wildlife in the region.	A preliminary list of potential zoonotic diseases (e.g., 50 diseases in Guyana) [20].
2. Hazard Identification & Criteria Setting	Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria and establishment of weighted prioritization criteria.	A refined list of zoonoses and a agreed-upon scoring framework.
3. Multisectoral Expert Workshop	Engagement of experts from human health, veterinary medicine, ecology, wildlife management, and food safety.	A collaborative environment for discussion and scoring [20].
4. Semi-Quantitative Scoring & Ranking	Experts score diseases based on weighted criteria using a defined scale (e.g., one-to-five).	A ranked list of zoonotic diseases in order of relative importance [20].
5. Final Prioritization & Output	Discussion of tool output and consensus-building to finalize the priority list.	A final list of priority zoonoses to guide national policy and research [20].

Methodological Considerations for Parasite Surveillance

Effective prioritization relies on high-quality surveillance data. The methods for collecting and processing samples from wildlife are critical for accurate parasite detection and identification.

Sample Collection and Identification: Sampling can be invasive (trapping, carcass collection) or non-invasive (scat collection, camera traps). Non-invasive methods are increasingly used but require careful species identification of the host, for instance through molecular scatology, to avoid misidentification bias [22].

Sample Preservation and Analysis: The preservation method must align with the analysis goals. Fresh samples are ideal, but room-temperature storage leads to DNA degradation after 24 hours. Freezing at -20°C is suitable for molecular analysis but may destroy certain larval stages needed for morphological identification (e.g., for Ancylostomatidae and Strongyloididae, which require the Baermann technique) [22]. For morphological study of adult helminths, specimens should be relaxed in warm saline before preservation to prevent muscle contraction that distorts taxonomic structures [22].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Wildlife Parasitology

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Considerations
Ethanol (70-96%)	Preservation of tissue and parasite samples for molecular and morphological analysis.	Concentration depends on downstream use (e.g., DNA vs. morphology) [22].
Formalin (10%)	Fixation of tissue samples and parasites for histological examination.	Excellent for preservation of morphology but not suitable for subsequent DNA analysis [22].
Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS)	Washing and relaxing fresh helminths collected from feces or tissues.	Relaxing worms in warm PBS prevents contraction of muscle fibers, aiding identification [22].
Sieves (100–200 µm)	Separation of macroscopic parasites from gut content during necropsy.	Used in the "shaking in a vessel technique" to isolate parasites from digested material .
FTA Cards	Room-temperature storage and preservation of DNA from blood or tissue samples.	Useful for field collection and transport when refrigeration is not available.
Baermann Apparatus	Concentration and isolation of live larvae from fecal samples.	Requires fresh, unpreserved samples as larvae need to be motile for the technique to work [22].

The following workflow diagram summarizes the key decision points in the sample collection and analysis process for wildlife parasites.

Diagram 1: Wildlife Parasite Sample Workflow

Implementing the Framework: From Criteria to Action

Translating prioritization criteria into a actionable score requires a structured system. The following diagram illustrates the logical flow of a prioritization exercise, from assessing a parasite against key criteria to determining its overall priority level for One Health attention.

Diagram 2: Parasite Prioritization Logic Flow

Case Study: Toxoplasmosis in the Arctic

The framework of guiding questions can be effectively illustrated with the example of Toxoplasma gondii in the Canadian Arctic. This case shows how a parasite can be prioritized based on multifaceted impacts on a One Health system [19].

• Risk to Human Health: T. gondii is a proven zoonotic parasite. In some Inuit communities of Nunavik, Quebec, human seroprevalence reaches up to 87%, indicating a massive exposure risk [19].
• Impact on Animal Health and Conservation: While the direct impact on Arctic wildlife populations is an area of active research, there is concern about its potential effects on species of conservation concern [19].
• Economic and Food Security Impact: The parasite has implications for food security and cultural well-being. Traditional harvesting of wildlife is central to the culture and diet of Arctic communities. The risk of toxoplasmosis from consuming traditionally hunted game species poses a threat to this cultural food security [19].
• Potential for Spread and Emergence: The transmission of T. gondii in the Arctic is enigmatic, as felid definitive hosts are scarce. Understanding the routes of transmission (e.g., through migratory birds, environmental oocysts transported by water or wind) is crucial, as climate change may alter these pathways, making it an emerging concern [19].

This multi-faceted impact profile, touching on human health, cultural safety, and environmental mystery, makes T. gondii a high-priority parasite for One Health action in the Arctic.

The prioritization of wildlife parasites for One Health attention is not an academic exercise but a practical necessity for the efficient allocation of resources in a world of evolving health threats. A successful framework must be semi-quantitative, incorporating weighted criteria to allow for objective ranking, yet flexible enough to accommodate regional variations in disease impact and capacity. As demonstrated by the OHZDP process in Guyana and the assessment of T. gondii in the Arctic, the engagement of a wide range of experts—from epidemiologists and veterinarians to ecologists and social scientists—is fundamental to building a comprehensive and legitimate priority list. The resulting list is a powerful tool for guiding national and international policy, shaping future research agendas, and ultimately building a more robust global defense against the complex threat of zoonotic parasitic diseases.

This whitepaper explores two distinct parasitic zoonoses—Toxoplasmosis in Arctic ecosystems and Cystic Echinococcosis (CE) at domestic-wildlife interfaces—through the integrative lens of the One Health framework. The One Health approach recognizes that the health of people is closely connected to the health of animals and our shared environment [2]. Using these case studies, we demonstrate how transdisciplinary collaborations and sophisticated epidemiological tools are essential for understanding transmission dynamics, assessing economic and health impacts, and developing effective control strategies for parasitic zoonoses of global significance.

Parasitic zoonoses represent a significant threat to global health, with profound economic and social consequences. The One Health approach is a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary strategy that operates at local, regional, national, and global levels to achieve optimal health outcomes by recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment [2]. This framework is particularly critical for combating zoonotic diseases, which account for over 60% of emerging infectious diseases in humans [7]. The complex life cycles of parasites like Toxoplasma gondii and Echinococcus granulosus involve multiple hosts and environmental reservoirs, making their control a quintessential One Health challenge requiring integrated surveillance, intervention, and research across human, animal, and environmental health domains.

Toxoplasmosis in Arctic Ecosystems: A One Health Case Study

Background and Transmission Dynamics

Toxoplasmosis, caused by the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii, has a heteroxenous life cycle in which felines act as definitive reservoirs [23]. The parasite can only sexually reproduce in felids, which excrete massive numbers of environmentally-resistant oocysts via feces [23]. Its presence in the Arctic is particularly enigmatic, as felids are rare in these regions [24]. Recent hypotheses suggest that migratory geese might act as vectors, transporting T. gondii from temperate overwintering grounds into Arctic food webs [25]. These geese, along with oocysts potentially transported by oceanic currents, act as 'parasite pollutants' moving from land to sea and back again in Arctic ecosystems [24].

Epidemiological Findings and Sentinel Species

Seroprevalence studies in Arctic-nesting geese provide critical insights into parasite circulation. Occupancy modeling techniques, which account for imperfect pathogen detection, have enhanced estimation accuracy.

Table 1: Toxoplasma gondii Seroprevalence in Arctic-Nesting Geese

Species	Location	Seroprevalence (Probability)	Diagnostic Methods
Ross's Geese	Karrak Lake, Nunavut, Canada	0.39	IFAT, DAT
Lesser Snow Geese	Karrak Lake, Nunavut, Canada	0.36	IFAT, DAT

Abbreviations: IFAT - Indirect Fluorescent Antibody Test; DAT - Direct Agglutination Test [25]

Furthermore, exposure in polar bears is increasing, linked to climate change-induced behavioral shifts and increased time on land in this rapidly warming region [24]. These findings position polar bears and geese as valuable sentinel species for monitoring ecosystem health and parasite pollution in the Arctic.

Experimental Protocols for Arctic Toxoplasmosis Surveillance

Field Sampling and Serological Testing

Sample Collection: Blood samples are collected from harvested geese during migration seasons on filter paper strips. For marine mammals and polar bears, sampling occurs during scientific expeditions or through indigenous hunter harvest programs [25] [24].

Serological Analysis:

• Sample Elution: Blood eluates are prepared from filter paper strips for antibody detection.
• Parallel Testing: Samples are tested using both:
  • Indirect Fluorescent Antibody Test (IFAT): Detracts antibodies with high sensitivity but has higher probability of ambiguous results.
  • Direct Agglutination Test (DAT): Provides complementary data for confirmatory analysis.
• Occupancy Modeling: Statistical approach accounting for imperfect detection to reduce bias in seroprevalence estimates when no gold standard assay exists [25].

Molecular Characterization and Source Tracking

Genetic Analysis: Tissue cysts from infected animals are characterized using PCR-RFLP markers to identify T. gondii genotypes and track potential sources [23]. This helps distinguish between recently introduced strains versus established Arctic lineages.

The following diagram illustrates the complex pathways through which T. gondii enters and circulates in Arctic ecosystems:

Cystic Echinococcosis at Domestic-Wildlife Interfaces: A One Health Case Study

Background and Transmission Dynamics

Cystic Echinococcosis (CE), or hydatid disease, is a neglected zoonotic disease caused by the larval stage of the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus [26]. The parasite maintains a domestic life cycle between definitive hosts (dogs and other canids) and intermediate hosts (livestock such as sheep, cattle, and goats) [27]. Humans act as accidental intermediate hosts, acquiring infection through ingestion of parasite eggs excreted in canid feces, often through contaminated food, water, or soil [26] [28]. The highest prevalence occurs in sheep-raising rural communities where close contact exists between dogs, livestock, and humans [29] [28].

Epidemiological and Economic Burden

CE imposes a substantial health and economic burden worldwide, with the 2015 WHO Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group estimating it causes 19,300 deaths and approximately 871,000 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) globally each year [26]. The economic impact is multifaceted, encompassing both direct costs from organ condemnation in livestock and extensive human treatment costs.

Table 2: Cystic Echinococcosis Prevalence and Economic Impact in Selected Studies

Location	Host Species	Prevalence	Organs Most Affected	Economic Impact
Migori County, Kenya [27]	Cattle	5.3%	Lungs, Liver	$152,003/year direct losses
Migori County, Kenya [27]	Goats	2.0%	Lungs, Liver	$152,003/year direct losses
Migori County, Kenya [27]	Sheep	0.1%	Lungs, Liver	$152,003/year direct losses
Basrah, Iraq [29]	Humans	4.5/100,000 annual incidence	Liver (51.7%), Lungs (28.3%)	N/A

Risk Factors and Knowledge-Practice Gaps

Epidemiological studies have identified key risk factors associated with CE transmission at domestic-wildlife interfaces:

• Canid Management: Feeding dogs with raw viscera, allowing dogs to roam freely, and lack of regular anthelmintic treatment [28].
• Socioeconomic Factors: Owner's poor health education, indicators of poverty, and rural residency [29] [28].
• Environmental Hygiene: Presence of stray dogs, unboiled drinking water, and unwashed vegetables [29].
• Agricultural Practices: Home slaughter of livestock and poor disposal of infected offal [29] [28].

A knowledge-practice gap exacerbates transmission in endemic areas. In Basrah, Iraq, 72% of surgically treated CE patients had heard of hydatid disease, but 57% were unaware of transmission routes, and 86% did not boil drinking water [29]. This highlights critical gaps in One Health education efforts.

Diagnostic and Surveillance Methodologies

Veterinary Surveillance and Meat Inspection

Abattoir Surveillance Protocol:

• Ante-mortem Examination: Animals are observed for clinical signs (rare in early infection).
• Post-mortem Inspection: Systematic examination of organs, particularly liver and lungs.
• Cyst Identification: Visual inspection, palpation, and incision of organs to detect hydatid cysts.
• Organ Condemnation: Infected organs are condemned and properly destroyed to break transmission cycle.
• Data Recording: Number of infected organs, species, and geographical origin are documented for surveillance [27].

Human Diagnosis and Staging

Clinical Diagnostic Protocol:

• Imaging: Ultrasonography is the primary technique for CE diagnosis and staging, complemented by CT or MRI for complex cases [26].
• Serological Tests: Detect specific antibodies using various immunoassays to support imaging findings.
• WHO Classification: Uses standardized classification system to guide stage-specific treatment [26].

Echinococcosis Transmission Cycle and Interventions

The following diagram illustrates the transmission cycle of E. granulosus and key intervention points:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Research Reagent Solutions for Zoonotic Parasite Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Their Applications

Reagent/Assay	Application	Specifications	Research Utility
Indirect Fluorescent Antibody Test (IFAT)	Detection of T. gondii antibodies in serum/eluates	High sensitivity, species-specific conjugates required	Seroprevalence studies in wildlife and sentinel species [25]
Direct Agglutination Test (DAT)	T. gondii antibody detection	Simple format, less ambiguous results	Complementary serological assay for wildlife [25]
PCR-RFLP Markers	Genotyping of T. gondii and Echinococcus strains	10+ markers for comprehensive genotyping	Molecular epidemiology and source tracking [23]
EG95 Recombinant Antigen	E. granulosus vaccine development	Commercial production in China and Argentina	Livestock vaccination to interrupt transmission [26]
Praziquantel	Canid deworming for Echinococcus control	Minimum 4 treatments annually	Definitive host intervention to reduce environmental contamination [26]
Ultrasonography with WHO Classification	Human CE diagnosis and staging	Standardized imaging classification (CE1-CE5)	Clinical management and epidemiological studies [26]
Withasomniferolide A	Withasomniferolide A|For Research Use Only	Withasomniferolide A is a withanolide from Withania somnifera for research. This product is for laboratory research purposes only.	Bench Chemicals
Eupaglehnin C	Eupaglehnin C|RUO	Eupaglehnin C is a natural germacrane-type sesquiterpenoi with research applications. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human use.	Bench Chemicals

Integrated One Health Research Framework

A comprehensive One Health research approach requires integration of multiple methodologies:

Epidemiological Modeling: Statistical approaches like occupancy modeling account for imperfect detection in prevalence studies, while network analysis explores zoonotic agent sharing among sources [25] [30].

Molecular Epidemiology: Genetic characterization of parasites using multilocus genotyping tracks transmission pathways and identifies emerging strains [23].

Socio-behavioral Research: Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) surveys identify critical gaps in public awareness to tailor education programs [29].

Discussion and Synthesis: Converging Lessons for One Health Implementation

These case studies demonstrate that despite different ecological settings—remote Arctic ecosystems versus pastoral domestic-wildlife interfaces—effective control of parasitic zoonoses requires common One Health strategies:

Transdisciplinary Collaboration

Both systems require breaking down disciplinary silos. Toxoplasmosis control necessitates collaboration between wildlife biologists, oceanographers, veterinarians, and public health officials [24] [23], while CE control involves veterinarians, physicians, agricultural workers, and social scientists [29] [28]. The zoonotic web concept emphasizes that infectious agents circulate in complex networks requiring integrated approaches [30].

Sentinel Surveillance Systems

Both cases highlight the value of sentinel species—geese and polar bears for Arctic toxoplasmosis, and livestock for CE—as early warning systems for ecosystem health threats and transmission dynamics [25] [24].

Context-Tailored Intervention Strategies

Control strategies must be adapted to local ecological and social contexts. For CE, a combination of dog deworming, livestock vaccination with EG95, abattoir hygiene, and public education could eliminate human transmission within a decade [26]. For Arctic toxoplasmosis, understanding changing transmission pathways in warming climates is paramount [24].

Economic Considerations

Both diseases impose substantial economic burdens—CE costs an estimated $3 billion annually globally from human treatment and livestock losses [26], while toxoplasmosis costs nearly $3 billion annually in the USA alone from foodborne illness [23]. One Health economics must account for these cross-sectoral impacts to justify integrated control programs.

Toxoplasmosis in Arctic ecosystems and Cystic Echinococcosis at domestic-wildlife interfaces exemplify the complex challenges at the human-animal-environment interface. Through these case studies, we demonstrate that the One Health approach is not merely a conceptual framework but an essential practical strategy for understanding and controlling parasitic zoonoses. Future research should focus on enhancing surveillance networks, developing novel interventions, and strengthening transdisciplinary collaborations to address these persistent and emerging threats to global health. The development of locally-relevant One Health strategies, informed by robust epidemiological data and community engagement, remains critical for reducing the burden of these neglected parasitic diseases.

Advanced Methodologies: Surveillance, Computational Approaches, and Therapeutic Innovation

Integrated surveillance systems are critical for early detection and management of wildlife parasitic zoonoses within a One Health framework. These systems combine molecular diagnostics, strategic use of sentinel species, and environmental monitoring to provide a comprehensive understanding of pathogen dynamics at the human-animal-environment interface. This technical guide examines current methodologies, experimental protocols, and analytical frameworks that enable researchers to effectively monitor, predict, and mitigate zoonotic disease threats. By synthesizing the latest advances in surveillance technologies and approaches, this review provides a foundation for developing robust, multi-sectoral surveillance networks that can adapt to evolving zoonotic challenges in an increasingly interconnected world.

The One Health approach recognizes that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are interconnected and interdependent [2]. This integrated perspective is particularly crucial for addressing parasitic zoonoses, which account for a significant proportion of emerging infectious diseases [31] [30]. Integrated surveillance systems form the backbone of effective One Health implementation, enabling early detection, timely response, and evidence-based control of zoonotic pathogens [32] [33].

The fundamental principle of One Health surveillance lies in breaking down traditional silos between human, animal, and environmental health sectors. This requires collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approaches that work across local, regional, national, and global levels [2]. The complex ecology of zoonotic diseases necessitates surveillance strategies that capture pathogen dynamics across multiple hosts, vectors, and environmental reservoirs [30]. By integrating data streams from these diverse sources, surveillance systems can provide early warnings of spillover events, track pathogen evolution and spread, and inform targeted interventions [32] [33].

Despite growing recognition of its importance, operationalizing integrated surveillance faces significant challenges. These include professional and budgetary silos, differences in awareness and priority between sectors, lack of standardized data sharing protocols, and fragmented community engagement [34] [33]. Furthermore, surveillance systems have historically focused on human and domestic animal health, often neglecting wildlife and environmental components [34]. This guide addresses these challenges by providing a comprehensive framework for implementing integrated surveillance systems that effectively capture the complexity of zoonotic disease transmission.

Molecular Diagnostics in Surveillance

Advanced Molecular Techniques

Molecular diagnostics have revolutionized infectious disease surveillance by enabling rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of pathogens. Metagenomic sequencing (mNGS) represents a particularly transformative approach for One Health surveillance. Unlike traditional diagnostic methods that target specific known pathogens, mNGS allows for unbiased detection of a broad spectrum of infectious agents without prior knowledge of the causative organism [32]. The methodology involves direct sequencing of nucleic acids from clinical, animal, or environmental samples, followed by sophisticated bioinformatic analysis to identify pathogenic sequences [32] [35].

The basic workflow of metagenomic analysis comprises five critical steps: (1) genome enrichment to increase pathogen nucleic acid concentration, (2) genomic DNA extraction, (3) metagenomic DNA library construction, (4) target gene screening, and (5) product activity expression [32]. This approach has proven particularly valuable for diagnosing complex central nervous system infections and detecting co-infections that might be missed by targeted assays [32]. In One Health contexts, mNGS enables simultaneous surveillance of bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic pathogens across human, animal, and environmental samples, providing unprecedented insights into pathogen diversity and transmission dynamics.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods remain fundamental to molecular surveillance systems, with ongoing advancements enhancing their utility. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and reverse transcription qPCR (RT-qPCR) provide sensitive detection and quantification of pathogen load, which is crucial for monitoring disease progression and transmission risk [36]. These techniques have been widely deployed in environmental surveillance, including wastewater monitoring, where they enable community-level assessment of pathogen circulation [36]. The development of portable, rapid PCR platforms has further expanded the application of molecular diagnostics to field settings, enabling near real-time surveillance in remote locations with limited infrastructure [32].

Implementation Protocols

Implementing molecular diagnostics in integrated surveillance requires careful consideration of sampling strategies, analytical protocols, and quality assurance measures. For comprehensive pathogen detection, the following protocol provides a framework for metagenomic sequencing in One Health surveillance:

Sample Collection and Processing:

• Collect appropriate samples (blood, tissue, feces, water, soil) based on the target pathogens and hosts
• Preserve samples immediately using appropriate methods (e.g., RNA later, freezing at -80°C)
• Extract nucleic acids using protocols that maximize yield and minimize inhibitors
• Include extraction controls to monitor for contamination

Library Preparation and Sequencing:

• Fragment DNA to appropriate size (typically 200-500 bp)
• Add platform-specific adapters with unique molecular identifiers
• Amplify libraries using limited-cycle PCR
• Sequence on appropriate platform (Illumina, Oxford Nanopore, etc.)

Bioinformatic Analysis:

• Quality control of raw sequencing reads (FastQC, MultiQC)
• Host sequence subtraction (BWA, Bowtie2)
• De novo assembly and/or mapping to reference databases
• Taxonomic classification using specialized tools (Kraken2, METAVIRAL)
• Phylogenetic analysis for specific pathogens of interest

Table 1: Key Molecular Reagents for One Health Surveillance

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Applications in Surveillance
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA/RNA Kits, PowerSoil DNA Kit	Extraction from clinical, environmental, and animal samples
Library Preparation Kits	Illumina DNA Prep, Nextera XT	Metagenomic library construction for NGS
Enzymes & Master Mixes	Q5 High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase, OneTaq RT-PCR Mix	Amplification and detection of pathogen sequences
Probes & Primers	Custom TaqMan assays, Pan-pathogen primers	Targeted detection of specific zoonotic pathogens
Sequencing Reagents	Illumina SBS chemistry, Nanopore R9 flow cells	Platform-specific sequencing of prepared libraries
Bioinformatic Tools	Kraken2, BLAST, CZ-ID, IDseq	Taxonomic classification and pathogen identification

The sensitivity and specificity of molecular surveillance can be enhanced through targeted enrichment strategies. Hybridization-based capture using pathogen-specific probes increases the sensitivity for detecting low-abundance pathogens in complex samples [32]. This approach is particularly valuable for monitoring specific zoonotic threats or conducting focused surveillance in high-risk interfaces. For high-throughput screening, multiplexed PCR panels enable simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens from a single sample, providing efficient surveillance of common zoonotic agents [32].

Sentinel Species in Zoonoses Monitoring

Conceptual Framework and Selection Criteria

Sentinel species are organisms that respond measurably and in a timely manner to environmental changes or pathogen presence, providing early warnings of health threats to other species, including humans [35]. The strategic deployment of sentinels represents a powerful approach for monitoring zoonotic pathogens in hard-to-reach environments and complex ecosystems. Effective sentinel species function as "virus collectors" that can accumulate and amplify pathogen signals, making them valuable components of integrated surveillance systems [35].

Selecting appropriate sentinel species requires careful consideration of ecological and physiological factors. Key selection criteria include:

• Ecological Integration: Sentinels should inhabit the same environment as the target hosts and pathogens, with substantial trophic connections to other ecosystem components [35]
• Exposure Potential: Species with broad dietary ranges (generalists) or those feeding through filtration are particularly effective as they encounter diverse pathogens [35]
• Sampling Practicality: Species that are easily observed, captured, or sampled facilitate consistent monitoring efforts [35]
• Sensitivity and Specificity: Ideal sentinels show detectable responses to pathogen presence while minimizing false positives [35]

Top predators and scavengers often make excellent sentinels due to their position in food webs, which exposes them to pathogens accumulating through trophic transfer [35]. Similarly, species with wide geographic ranges provide valuable data across diverse locations and ecosystems, while those with specific ecological niches offer insights into specialized environments [35].

Implementation and Validation

Implementing sentinel-based surveillance requires standardized protocols for sample collection, processing, and analysis. The following workflow outlines a comprehensive approach to sentinel surveillance:

Sentinel Selection and Monitoring:

• Identify candidate species based on ecological criteria and target pathogens
• Establish baseline health parameters for the sentinel population
• Implement regular sampling schedules (e.g., seasonal, annual)
• Record behavioral and physiological observations

Sample Collection and Analysis:

• Collect appropriate samples (blood, feces, tissues, swabs) based on target pathogens
• Process samples for molecular, serological, and pathological analyses
• Apply metagenomic sequencing to characterize pathogen diversity
• Use targeted assays (qPCR) for specific pathogens of concern

Data Integration and Interpretation:

• Correlate pathogen detection with sentinel health status
• Map detections geographically and temporally
• Integrate with environmental and anthropogenic data
• Validate findings through complementary sampling methods

Table 2: Promising Sentinel Species for Zoonoses Surveillance

Ecosystem Type	Candidate Sentinel Species	Target Pathogens/Zoonoses	Surveillance Advantages
Terrestrial Forests	Army ants (Dorylus spp.), Top feline predators	Cressdnaviricota, Zoonotic viruses	Wide foraging range, prey accumulation [35]
Polar Regions	Snowy sheathbill (Chionis albus)	Sapovirus, Gammaherpesvirus	Migration patterns, scavenging behavior [35]
Urban Environments	Birds (crows, pigeons), Rodents	West Nile virus, Leptospirosis	Proximity to human populations, accessibility [2]
Aquatic Systems	Filter-feeding mollusks, Predatory fish	Waterborne pathogens, Toxoplasma	Bioaccumulation, filtration capacity [35]
Agricultural Lands	Livestock, Peridomestic wildlife	Zoonotic influenza, Brucellosis	Interface with domestic animals and humans [30]

The effectiveness of sentinel-based surveillance depends on proper validation. Critical validation steps include determining whether the viral diversity detected in sentinels accurately reflects that circulating in the ecosystem, understanding how long pathogens persist in sentinels, and establishing the representativeness of sentinel findings across spatial and temporal scales [35]. Advanced techniques such as diet metabarcoding can help identify the sources through which sentinels accumulate pathogens, while biologging technology provides insights into their movement patterns and exposure risks [35].

Environmental Monitoring Approaches

Wastewater and Environmental Sampling

Environmental monitoring provides critical complementary data to clinical and animal surveillance, offering population-level insights into pathogen circulation without individual testing. Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) has emerged as a particularly powerful tool for monitoring community health, with demonstrated effectiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic [36]. WBE involves analyzing wastewater to detect pathogens shed in human feces, providing a cost-effective, non-invasive method for community-wide surveillance that captures both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections [36].

The technical workflow for WBE includes:

• Sample Collection: Composite wastewater samples collected from inlet works of treatment plants
• Sample Concentration: Methods such as ultrafiltration, precipitation, or adsorption-elution
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Isolation of pathogen RNA/DNA from concentrated samples
• Pathogen Detection: Molecular analysis using PCR, RT-qPCR, or metagenomic sequencing
• Data Normalization: Adjusting pathogen concentrations using fecal indicators or flow rates
• Data Interpretation: Correlating pathogen levels with clinical case data and trends

WBE has expanded beyond SARS-CoV-2 to monitor diverse pathogens including influenza, norovirus, antimicrobial resistance genes, and zoonotic parasites [36]. The approach is particularly valuable for tracking pathogens with high rates of asymptomatic infection, as it provides an unbiased measure of community transmission. Recent technological advances have enhanced WBE applications, including the development of automated sampling systems, improved concentration methods for different pathogen types, and sophisticated data normalization techniques that account for wastewater composition and flow dynamics [36].

Integrated Environmental Surveillance

Beyond wastewater, comprehensive environmental surveillance incorporates multiple sampling matrices to capture pathogen dynamics across different reservoirs. Aerobiology - the study of airborne microorganisms - provides insights into the transmission of respiratory pathogens, while surface microbiome analysis examines high-touch areas to assess pathogen persistence in built environments [36]. Integrating these approaches with WBE creates a multidimensional surveillance system that enhances early detection capabilities and provides cross-validation of findings.

Effective environmental surveillance programs incorporate:

• Strategic Site Selection: Prioritizing locations with high human-animal interface activity, such as live animal markets, agricultural facilities, and wildlife crossing points [30]
• Temporal Sampling Design: Accounting for seasonal variations in pathogen prevalence and environmental conditions
• Multi-matrix Analysis: Simultaneous testing of complementary sample types (air, water, surfaces) to capture different transmission routes
• Standardized Protocols: Ensuring comparability across sampling locations and timepoints

The integration of environmental surveillance with other data streams creates a powerful early warning system. For example, detecting avian influenza in wastewater before clinical cases emerge allows for proactive public health interventions [36]. Similarly, monitoring antimicrobial resistance genes in environmental samples provides insights into the dissemination of resistance mechanisms across human, animal, and environmental compartments [37] [36].

Integration Frameworks and Data Synthesis

One Health Surveillance Systems

Developing effective integrated surveillance requires systematic frameworks that bridge sectoral and disciplinary boundaries. The One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) Theory of Change provides a structured approach, organized across three pathways: (1) policy, legislation, advocacy and financing; (2) organizational development, implementation and sectoral integration; and (3) data, evidence and knowledge [34]. This framework emphasizes that successful integration requires attention not only to technical capabilities but also to governance structures, funding mechanisms, and knowledge-sharing practices.

A systematic approach to developing One Health surveillance systems involves six key steps [33]:

• Scope Definition: Stakeholders collaboratively define surveillance objectives, scope, and indicators aligned with the Quadripartite's One Health definition
• Component Identification: Identify data collection components, including existing systems and gaps, covering both pathogen/disease data and drivers of emergence
• System Design: Develop integrated architecture for data collection, management, analysis, and dissemination
• Implementation Planning: Address logistical requirements, capacity needs, and phased rollout strategies
• Operation and Monitoring: Establish protocols for ongoing system operation, quality assurance, and performance monitoring
• Evaluation and Refinement: Regularly assess system effectiveness and adapt to changing needs and contexts

The "zoonotic web" concept provides a valuable analytical framework for understanding and mapping complex relationships between zoonotic agents, their hosts, vectors, food, and environmental sources [30]. This network-based approach reveals key interfaces for transmission and identifies influential nodes that disproportionately affect disease dynamics. Network analysis applied to zoonotic webs can identify communities of zoonotic agent sharing and pinpoint critical intervention points [30].

Data Integration and Analytical Approaches

Integrating diverse data streams from human, animal, and environmental surveillance requires sophisticated analytical approaches and interoperable data systems. Multiple-correspondence analysis (MCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) can identify patterns and relationships across disparate data types, facilitating the development of surveillance system typologies [37]. Similarly, network analysis applied to zoonotic interaction data can reveal community structures and identify central actors in disease transmission [30].

Key considerations for data integration include:

• Standardization: Developing common case definitions, laboratory methods, and data formats across sectors
• Interoperability: Ensuring information systems can exchange and interpret shared data
• Metadata Collection: Capturing essential contextual information to enable meaningful interpretation
• Visualization Tools: Creating dashboards and mapping interfaces that support decision-making

Table 3: Metrics for Evaluating Integrated Surveillance Systems

Evaluation Dimension	Specific Metrics	Data Sources
System Performance	Timeliness, Sensitivity, Specificity, Predictive value	Surveillance records, Laboratory data
Coverage & Representativeness	Geographic coverage, Population representation, Pathogen scope	Sampling records, Population data
Integration Level	Number of sectors involved, Data sharing protocols, Joint analyses	System documentation, Stakeholder interviews
Impact & Utility	Outbreaks detected, Interventions informed, Policy changes	Response records, Policy documents
Resource Efficiency	Cost per sample, Cost per outbreak detected, Staff time	Financial records, Activity logs

The effectiveness of integrated surveillance ultimately depends on its ability to inform public health action. This requires not only technical capabilities but also established pathways for communication, decision-making, and intervention. Regular exercises and simulations help identify bottlenecks in these pathways before actual emergencies, building muscle memory for coordinated response [33]. Furthermore, engaging communities in surveillance activities enhances acceptability, provides local knowledge, and strengthens the sustainability of surveillance systems [34] [33].

Integrated surveillance systems that combine molecular diagnostics, sentinel species, and environmental monitoring represent a powerful approach for addressing wildlife parasitic zoonoses within a One Health framework. The synergistic application of these components provides complementary data streams that enable more comprehensive understanding of zoonotic disease dynamics than any single approach could achieve independently. Molecular technologies continue to advance the sensitivity, speed, and scope of pathogen detection, while strategic use of sentinels provides windows into hard-to-reach ecosystems. Environmental monitoring, particularly wastewater surveillance, offers population-level insights that capture both human and animal contributions to pathogen circulation.

Implementing effective integrated surveillance requires addressing significant challenges, including breaking down sectoral silos, developing interoperable data systems, and securing sustainable funding. The frameworks and protocols outlined in this guide provide a roadmap for overcoming these barriers and establishing surveillance systems that are greater than the sum of their parts. As anthropogenic changes continue to alter interactions between humans, animals, and ecosystems, the importance of such integrated approaches will only grow. By investing in robust, multi-sectoral surveillance networks today, we can build resilience against the zoonotic threats of tomorrow.

Future directions for integrated surveillance include the expanded application of novel technologies such as CRISPR-based diagnostics, environmental DNA (eDNA) monitoring, and artificial intelligence for pattern recognition in complex datasets. Additionally, there is growing recognition of the need to more fully incorporate plant health into One Health surveillance, given the interconnectedness of agricultural systems, ecosystem health, and human nutrition. As these technologies and frameworks evolve, they will further enhance our ability to detect, understand, and mitigate zoonotic threats at their source, ultimately protecting human, animal, and ecosystem health through truly integrated approaches.

Zoonoses, diseases naturally transmissible between animals and humans, constitute a major threat to global health, accounting for approximately 60% of all human infectious diseases and 75% of emerging infectious diseases [38]. The complex ecology of these diseases, involving multiple host species, environmental reservoirs, and transmission pathways, demands a sophisticated analytical approach. The One Health framework, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health, is essential for untangling these complexities [5]. This technical guide explores the application of network analysis to model "zoonotic webs"—the intricate relationships between zoonotic agents, their hosts, vectors, and environmental sources [30]. For researchers and drug development professionals, this approach provides a powerful methodology for identifying critical control points and optimizing surveillance and intervention strategies for wildlife parasitic zoonoses.

Conceptual Foundations: From Transmission Pathways to Zoonotic Webs

Defining Transmission Pathways

Traditional zoonosis research often focuses on direct host-pathogen interactions. However, a comprehensive One Health view requires mapping all potential transmission routes. A systematic analysis of emerging zoonotic diseases identified five broad transmission pathway categories [39]:

• Direct Contact: Skin-to-skin contact, animal bites, scratches, contact with body fluids or tissues.
• Airborne Transmission: Inhalation of dust particles or airborne small droplets.
• Vector-Borne: Transmission via biting or mechanical transfer by arthropods.
• Oral Transmission: Consumption of contaminated food or water.
• Contaminated Environment/Fomite: Indirect contact with soil, vegetation, water, or contaminated objects.

The relative importance of these pathways varies significantly depending on the underlying drivers of disease emergence, such as land-use change, agricultural intensification, or bushmeat consumption [39]. This variability underscores the need for targeted, context-specific surveillance strategies.

The Zoonotic Web Concept

The "zoonotic web" is a network-based conceptual model akin to an ecological food web [30]. It represents the complex network of relationships among all actors in a zoonotic system: zoonotic agents (pathogens), their vertebrate hosts (including humans, wildlife, and livestock), invertebrate vectors, food products, and environmental sources. This concept moves beyond simple linear transmission chains to model the multi-source, multi-agent systems that characterize real-world zoonotic disease dynamics. Analyzing this web allows researchers to identify highly connected nodes and interfaces where pathogen spillover is most probable, thereby informing more effective and preemptive One Health strategies.

Methodological Framework: Network Construction and Analysis

Data Compilation and Curation Protocol

Constructing a robust zoonotic web requires systematically compiled data on zoonotic interactions. The following protocol, adapted from a national-scale study, ensures comprehensive and structured data collection [30].

• Systematic Literature Search: Conduct a systematic search of scientific databases (e.g., ISI Web of Science, PubMed) using targeted search strings. Key terms should include pathogen names, "transmission," "route," "pathway," "host," "reservoir," and geographic filters.
• Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Define clear criteria for study selection. Include publications reporting evidence of natural infection or detection of zoonotic agents in hosts, vectors, food, or environmental matrices. Exclude reviews without primary data, studies reporting only experimental infections, and research conducted outside the geographic area of interest.
• Data Extraction and Structuring: Extract data into a structured dataset (.csv format). Each row should represent a unique zoonotic agent-source combination (e.g., Salmonella-Chicken, Leptospira-Water). Data fields must include:
  • Zoonotic agent (resolved to lowest possible taxonomic level)
  • Source (host species, vector, food, or environmental type)
  • Type of evidence (e.g., PCR, culture, serology)
  • Reference and publication year
• Data Validation: Supplement peer-reviewed literature with data from national laboratory reports, government surveillance data, and international organization fact sheets (e.g., WHO, OIE) to fill surveillance gaps.

Network Modeling and Analysis Techniques

Once compiled, the data forms a bipartite network, which can be transformed and analyzed using various metrics.

• Network Projection: The raw bipartite network (linking zoonotic agents to their sources) is transformed into a one-mode projection—a source-source network where nodes represent sources, and links represent the sharing of one or more zoonotic agents. Links can be weighted by the number of shared agents [30].
• Key Network Metrics:
  • Degree Centrality: The number of direct connections a node has. A source with high degree is a "hub" sharing many zoonotic agents.
  • Betweenness Centrality: Identifies nodes that act as "bridges" between different parts of the network. These are potential critical control points for intervention.
  • Community Detection: Algorithms identify groups (clusters) of sources that share more zoonotic agents with each other than with sources in other groups. This reveals underlying ecological or anthropogenic drivers of pathogen sharing.

Identifying Critical Control Points

The ultimate goal of network analysis is to identify Critical Control Points (CCPs)—specific points, steps, or interfaces in the zoonotic web where a hazard can be prevented, eliminated, or reduced to acceptable levels. In the context of the One Health approach, CCPs often emerge at key interfaces [38]:

• Human-Animal Interfaces: Formal and informal slaughterhouses, live animal markets (wet markets), veterinary clinics, and carcass disposal sites.
• Human-Food Interfaces: Points of food processing, distribution, and consumption, particularly for raw or undercooked animal products.
• Human-Environment Interfaces: Water sources, recreational areas, and agricultural settings with high risk of environmental contamination.

Network analysis quantitatively identifies these CCPs by highlighting nodes with high betweenness centrality and interfaces with high spillover probability, such as human-cattle and human-food interfaces [30].

Quantitative Insights: Transmission Pathways and Network Topology

Data synthesis is critical for translating network models into actionable insights. The tables below summarize key quantitative findings from foundational studies in the field.

Table 1: Proportion of Zoonotic EIDs Transmitted by Different Pathways (Equal Weighting) [39]

Transmission Pathway	Percentage of Zoonotic Pathogens
Oral Transmission	42%
Vector-Borne	42%
Airborne Transmission	36%
Direct Contact	29%
Contaminated Environment/Fomite	24%

Note: Percentages exceed 100% as many pathogens can be transmitted via multiple pathways.

Table 2: Zoonotic Agent Sharing Communities in a National Network [30]

Community / Cluster	Key Associated Sources	Drivers and Characteristics
Livestock-Associated	Cattle, Chicken, Pork/Beef Meat	Driven by anthropogenic activities and high connectivity of domesticated animals in the web.
Wildlife-Associated	Wild boar, Rodents, Certain Tick species	Driven by sylvatic cycles and natural host-pathogen relationships.
Food-Environment	Fresh produce, Water, Soil	Driven by environmental contamination and fecal-oral transmission routes.
Multi-Host Generalist	Human, Dogs, Cats	Characterized by highly promiscuous zoonotic agents with broad host ranges.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Protocols and Reagents

Implementing a network analysis for zoonotic diseases requires a combination of analytical tools and laboratory capacities. The following toolkit outlines essential resources.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Zoonotic Web Studies

Item / Tool	Function / Application
One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) Tool	A structured process to engage multisectoral partners in prioritizing zoonotic diseases of greatest concern for a specific region using a mixed-methods approach [40].
One Health Systems Mapping & Analysis Resource Toolkit (OH-SMART)	A workshop-based tool for mapping multisectoral coordination and collaboration, and for developing action plans to improve One Health systems for disease control [40].
PCR Assays (Broad-Range & Specific)	For pathogen discovery and identification in host, vector, and environmental samples. Broad-range primers (e.g., 16S rRNA for bacteria) enable detection of unexpected agents.
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)	To detect pathogen exposure (antibodies) in host species, providing data on past infection and seroprevalence across the network.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	For whole-genome sequencing of isolated pathogens, enabling high-resolution analysis of transmission dynamics and strain relatedness across the network.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)	To georeference data on host, pathogen, and environmental factors, allowing for spatial analysis and mapping of network nodes and links.
Network Analysis Software (e.g., R/igraph, Gephi)	To construct, visualize, and analyze the bipartite and projected networks, and to calculate centrality and community structure metrics.
14-Episinomenine	14-Episinomenine, MF:C19H23NO4, MW:329.4 g/mol
Gambogic acid B	Gambogic Acid B

Integrated Operational Protocol: Combining OHZDP and OH-SMART

A powerful approach for operationalizing research findings involves integrating two key tools in sequence [40]:

• OHZDP Workshop: Conduct a multisectoral workshop with representatives from human, animal, and environmental health sectors. The outcome is a collaboratively generated list of priority zoonotic diseases for the region of interest.
• OH-SMART Workshop: Using the priority disease list from the OHZDP, conduct a systems mapping workshop. Participants map the existing coordination and response system for these diseases, identifying critical gaps in surveillance, laboratory capacity, and outbreak response. The outcome is a concrete action plan for system strengthening.

This integrated protocol ensures that network analysis findings are translated into practical, prioritized, and collaboratively owned interventions.

Case Study: Evaluating One Health Platform Performance

A cross-sectional study of Guinea's regional One Health platforms provides a real-world example of assessing system readiness. The evaluation, based on the Africa CDC assessment tool, scored performance across seven key indicators, revealing an overall national performance score of 41%, indicating limited implementation [5]. Radar chart analysis showed significant regional disparities and major weaknesses in mobilizing material resources (scoring only 9%), despite stronger performance in legislation in the capital region, Conakry (scoring 89%) [5]. This case underscores that technical network analysis must be coupled with robust institutional capacity for effective One Health action.

The One Health approach, which recognizes the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health, provides a critical framework for addressing the unique challenges of wildlife parasitic zoonoses [2]. These diseases, transmitted from wild animals to humans, pose significant and evolving threats to global health security, intensified by climate change, habitat encroachment, and increased human-wildlife interfaces [41] [30]. Traditional drug discovery pathways are often economically non-viable for these neglected diseases due to limited market incentives [14] [42]. Computational biology offers a powerful suite of tools to overcome these barriers, enabling the rapid, cost-effective identification and optimization of therapeutic interventions through virtual screening, Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling, and strategic drug repurposing [43] [44]. This technical guide explores the integration of these computational methodologies within a One Health context, providing researchers with advanced protocols to accelerate the development of treatments for parasitic zoonoses, thereby protecting human populations while conserving wildlife and ecosystem health.

Virtual Screening for Ultra-Large Chemical Libraries

Virtual screening has emerged as an indispensable first step in modern drug discovery, allowing researchers to computationally screen billions of chemical compounds to identify potential hits before costly wet-lab experiments [43] [44]. Its importance is magnified in the One Health context, where resource constraints for neglected zoonotic diseases demand highly efficient discovery pipelines.

State-of-the-Art Methodologies and Platforms

RosettaVS, a highly accurate structure-based virtual screening method, exemplifies recent advancements. This method outperforms other state-of-the-art approaches by successfully modeling receptor flexibility, a critical factor for accurately predicting binding poses and affinities [43]. The platform operates through two specialized docking modes:

• Virtual Screening Express (VSX): Designed for rapid initial screening of ultra-large compound libraries.
• Virtual Screening High-Precision (VSH): A more accurate method used for final ranking of top hits, incorporating full receptor flexibility [43].

To manage the computational expense of screening billion-compound libraries, active learning techniques are integrated into the screening workflow. These techniques simultaneously train a target-specific neural network during docking computations to intelligently select the most promising compounds for expensive docking calculations [43].

Experimental Protocol and Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated virtual screening workflow, incorporating both traditional and AI-accelerated approaches for parasitic zoonoses drug discovery:

Protocol Details:

• Target Preparation: Obtain the 3D protein structure of the parasitic zoonotic target (e.g., via X-ray crystallography, homology modeling). Define the binding site coordinates. Pre-process the structure by adding hydrogen atoms, assigning partial charges, and optimizing side-chain conformations [43].

• Compound Library Curation: Compile a diverse chemical library. For parasitic diseases, consider libraries enriched with known anti-parasitic compounds or natural products. Common libraries include ZINC, ChEMBL, or proprietary collections. Pre-process compounds by generating 3D conformations, enumerating tautomers, and applying chemical filters for drug-likeness [43] [44].

• VSX Screening (Initial Triage): Run the express docking mode against the entire library. This step uses reduced sampling and rigid receptor approximations to rapidly eliminate >99% of non-promising compounds. Typical parameters: 5-10 docking poses per compound, limited side-chain flexibility [43].

• Active Learning Cycle: Train a convolutional neural network (CNN) on the fly using docking scores and molecular descriptors from the VSX output. The CNN iteratively predicts which unexplored regions of chemical space are most likely to contain high-affinity binders, directing subsequent docking efforts [43].

• VSH Re-docking (Final Ranking): Subject the top 0.1-1% of compounds from the active learning cycle to high-precision docking. This step includes full side-chain flexibility and limited backbone movement. Use the improved RosettaGenFF-VS scoring function, which combines enthalpy (ΔH) calculations with entropy (ΔS) estimates for more accurate ranking [43].

• Hit Selection and Validation: Select the top 100-500 compounds based on VSH scores and chemical diversity. Procure compounds for experimental validation using binding affinity assays (e.g., SPR, FRET) and cell-based infectivity models relevant to the parasitic zoonosis [43].

Performance Benchmarking and Research Reagents

Table 1: Benchmarking Performance of RosettaVS on CASF-2016 Dataset

Performance Metric	RosettaGenFF-VS	Second-Best Method	Performance Improvement
Docking Power (Pose Prediction)	Top-performing	Other physics-based methods	Superior binding funnel efficiency [43]
Screening Power (EF1%)	16.72	11.9	~40% enhancement in early enrichment [43]
Success Rate (Top 1%)	Highest recorded	All comparative methods	Best identification of top binders [43]

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Virtual Screening

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Specifications / Examples
RosettaVS Software	Open-source virtual screening platform	Includes VSX and VSH docking modes; compatible with HPC clusters [43]
Chemical Compound Libraries	Source of candidate molecules for screening	ZINC, ChEMBL, Enamine REAL; multi-billion compound capacity [43]
High-Performance Computing (HPC)	Computational resource for docking calculations	3000 CPUs + GPUs; enables screening in <7 days [43]
Target Protein Structures	Molecular target for docking	PDB-derived or homology models; parasitic zoonoses targets (e.g., trypanothione reductase)

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Modeling in Drug Development

PK/PD modeling is a mathematical approach that integrates pharmacokinetics (what the body does to the drug) and pharmacodynamics (what the drug does to the body) to describe the time course of drug effects [45] [46] [47]. For wildlife parasitic zoonoses, these models are invaluable for optimizing dosing regimens across multiple species—humans, domestic animals, and wildlife—in alignment with One Health principles.

Core Modeling Concepts and Framework

Mechanism-based PK/PD modeling separates drug-specific, delivery system-specific, and physiological system-specific parameters, enabling a more predictive understanding of a drug's in vivo behavior [45] [47]. The basic framework involves:

• PK Component: Quantifies the relationship between drug dose and concentration-time profile in plasma and target tissues.
• PD Component: Relates the drug concentration at the effect site to the intensity of the pharmacological response.
• Link Model: Connects the PK and PD components, accounting for any temporal dissociation between plasma concentration and effect [46] [47].

Key PK/PD Model Structures and Equations

The diagram below illustrates the structural relationships between core PK/PD models used in drug development for complex diseases:

Fundamental PK Models:

• One-Compartment Model with First-Order Absorption:

  • Equations: dA1/dt = -ka · A1 [47] dA2/dt = ka · A1 - (CL/V) · A2 [47] Cp = A2/V [47]
  • Application: Suitable for drugs that rapidly distribute throughout the body and are absorbed via a first-order process, common in conventional oral formulations for anti-parasitics.

• One-Compartment Model with Zero-Order Absorption:

  • Equations: dA2/dt = K0 - (CL/V) · A2 [47] Cp = K0/CL · (1 - e^(-CL/V · t)) [47]
  • Application: Models extended-release formulations where drug is released at a constant rate (K0), potentially useful for long-acting depot formulations in wildlife reservoirs.

Fundamental PD Models:

• Direct Effect Models:

  • Sigmoid Emax Model: E = E0 + (Emax · C^γ) / (EC50^γ + C^γ) [46]
  • Application: Describes situations where the effect directly follows the plasma concentration, suitable for drugs that act directly on molecular targets without intermediate steps.

• Indirect Response Models:

  • Four Basic Models: Describe drugs that either inhibit or stimulate the production or loss of factors mediating the effect [46].
  • Application: Critical for modeling the effects of anti-parasitic drugs where the pharmacological response is delayed relative to plasma concentrations, such as those affecting parasite metabolism or immune-mediated clearance.

Experimental Protocol for PK/PD Model Development

Protocol Details:

• Study Design: Conduct in vivo studies in relevant animal models (e.g., rodent models of parasitic infection). Administer the drug via the intended route (IV, oral, etc.) at multiple dose levels. Collect serial blood samples at predetermined time points for PK analysis. Simultaneously, record PD measurements (e.g., parasite burden, biomarker levels) over time [45] [47].

• Bioanalytical Assays: Quantify drug concentrations in plasma and tissues using validated methods (e.g., LC-MS/MS). Measure relevant PD biomarkers specific to the parasitic zoonosis (e.g., serological markers, molecular parasite detection) [45].

• PK Model Development: Fit concentration-time data to appropriate compartmental models (1, 2, or 3 compartments) using non-linear mixed-effects modeling software (e.g., NONMEM, Monolix). Estimate parameters: clearance (CL), volume of distribution (V), absorption rate (ka) [45] [47].

• PD Model Development: Correlate drug concentration (or concentration in a hypothetical effect compartment) with the observed effect. Test different PD models (Direct, Indirect Response) to identify the best structure that describes the data [46] [47].

• Model Validation: Validate the final PK/PD model using diagnostic plots (observed vs. predicted concentrations/effects), visual predictive checks, and bootstrap analysis. Use the model to simulate different dosing scenarios to identify an optimal regimen for efficacy studies in target species (human and animal) [45].

PK/PD Modeling Applications and Research Reagents

Table 3: Application of PK/PD Modeling in Drug Delivery Systems for One Health

Application Domain	PK/PD Contribution	One Health Relevance
Extended-Release Formulations	Predicts drug release profile and optimizes formulation parameters	Reduces dosing frequency; improves compliance in human and animal populations [45] [47]
Liposomal Drugs & Nanoparticles	Quantifies carrier clearance, drug release rate, and target site accumulation	Enhances drug delivery to specific tissues; reduces off-target toxicity in wildlife [45]
Modified Proteins & Antibody-Drug Conjugates	Models complex disposition and target-mediated drug disposition	Optimizes biologics for parasitic targets; informs interspecies dosing [45]
Wildlife Dosage Optimization	Extrapolates PK/PD relationships from lab animals to wildlife species	Enables effective dosing in wildlife reservoirs to break transmission cycles

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for PK/PD Modeling

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Specifications / Examples
Animal Disease Models	In vivo PK/PD data generation	Rodent and non-rodent models of parasitic infection (e.g., mice, hamsters)
Bioanalytical Instrumentation	Drug and biomarker quantification	LC-MS/MS systems; validated analytical methods for drug and metabolites
Modeling & Simulation Software	PK/PD model development and parameter estimation	NONMEM, Monolix, R, Phoenix NLME; population PK/PD analysis capabilities
Physiological Fluids & Tissues	Matrices for drug concentration measurement	Plasma, serum, tissue homogenates from target organs

Drug Repurposing Strategies for Neglected Zoonotic Diseases

Drug repurposing offers a cost-effective strategy for identifying new therapeutic uses for existing drugs, significantly reducing the time and resources required compared to de novo drug development [14] [42]. This approach is particularly compelling for neglected wildlife parasitic zoonoses, where economic incentives for new drug development are limited.

Rationale and Workflow for Repurposing

The economic case for repurposing is strong: de novo drug development often exceeds 15 years and costs billions of dollars, whereas repurposing can slash development timelines and costs by 50% or more [14] [42]. The workflow integrates computational and experimental approaches:

• Computational Prioritization: Use virtual screening, pathway mapping, and semantic analysis to identify approved drugs with potential activity against parasitic targets.
• In Vitro Validation: Test prioritized compounds against the parasite in cell-based assays.
• In Vivo Confirmation: Evaluate efficacy in animal models of the zoonotic disease.
• Clinical Adaptation: Develop optimized formulations and dosing regimens for the new indication [14].

Successful Case Studies and AI-Enabled Approaches

Notable Repurposing Successes:

• Rilpivirine: An antiretroviral drug initially developed for HIV, recently shown to suppress Zika virus infection in the brain, demonstrating potential for zoonotic arboviruses [42].
• Remdesivir: Originally developed for Ebola virus infection, became the first effective treatment for COVID-19, highlighting the potential for broad-spectrum antiviral repurposing [42].

AI-Accelerated Repurposing: Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms can systematically analyze large-scale datasets (e.g., genomic, proteomic, clinical data) to identify novel drug-disease associations that would be difficult to detect through traditional methods [14] [42]. For example, network analysis of host-parasite protein interactions can reveal unexpected drug targets and corresponding inhibitors from existing drug libraries.

Integrating Computational Approaches within a One Health Framework

The true power of computational biology in addressing wildlife parasitic zoonoses emerges when virtual screening, PK/PD modeling, and repurposing strategies are integrated within a cohesive One Health framework. This integrated approach considers the complex ecological interactions between humans, animals, and environments that characterize zoonotic disease transmission [41] [30].

The Zoonotic Web and Network Analysis

The "zoonotic web" concept provides a network representation of the complex relationships between zoonotic agents, their hosts, vectors, and environmental sources [30]. Analyzing this web through network metrics identifies critical intervention points for disrupting transmission cycles. Key insights from such analyses include:

• Central Interfaces: Within transmission networks, humans, cattle, chickens, and meat products often emerge as the most influential zoonotic sources, highlighting key interfaces for targeted intervention [30].
• Community Structure: Zoonotic agents form distinct sharing communities driven by highly connected infectious agents, proximity to humans, and anthropogenic activities [30].
• Surveillance Priorities: Network analysis can prioritize surveillance efforts toward wildlife species and environmental matrices with high centrality in the zoonotic web, optimizing resource allocation for One Health monitoring [30].

Implementation Challenges and Future Directions

While computational methods offer transformative potential for zoonoses drug discovery, significant challenges remain in their implementation within One Health strategies:

• Data Gaps: Inconsistent sampling across host species and environmental matrices creates incomplete networks that may miss important transmission pathways [30].
• Model Generalizability: PK/PD models developed in laboratory species may not accurately predict drug behavior in diverse wildlife reservoirs due to physiological and metabolic differences.
• Regulatory Hurdles: Regulatory pathways for repurposed drugs in veterinary medicine or for use in wildlife populations remain underdeveloped [14].

Future progress depends on enhanced data sharing across human, animal, and environmental health sectors, development of adaptable modeling frameworks that account for interspecies differences, and regulatory innovation to accommodate the unique challenges of One Health therapeutic development [41] [30].

Computational biology provides an indispensable toolkit for advancing drug discovery against wildlife parasitic zoonoses within a One Health framework. Virtual screening enables rapid identification of hit compounds from immense chemical libraries; PK/PD modeling optimizes dosing regimens across multiple species; and drug repurposing offers a cost-effective strategy to expand the therapeutic arsenal. By integrating these approaches and acknowledging the interconnected nature of health across human, animal, and environmental domains, researchers can develop more effective, economically viable interventions against these neglected diseases. As climate change and ecological disruption increase human-wildlife interactions, these computational strategies will become increasingly vital for global health security, enabling proactive rather than reactive responses to emerging zoonotic threats.

The One Health approach fundamentally acknowledges that human health is intrinsically linked to animal health and the condition of the shared environment [7]. This integrated framework is critical for combating zoonotic diseases, which are infections naturally transmissible between vertebrates and humans, and which account for approximately 60% of all known human infectious diseases and up to 75% of emerging pathogens [4] [5]. The persistent threat of zoonoses, from well-established pathogens like Brucella and rabies to emerging threats such as SARS-CoV-2 and avian influenza, demands innovative therapeutic strategies that are effective across species boundaries [7] [48]. This whitepaper explores novel therapeutic platforms—encompassing natural immunomodulatory compounds, advanced vaccine adjuvants, and cross-species vaccine development—within the context of a unified One Health strategy, providing technical guidance for researchers and drug development professionals focused on mitigating the global impact of parasitic and other wildlife zoonoses.

Natural Compounds as Immunomodulatory Agents

Natural products, derived from a diverse range of plants, fungi, and marine organisms, represent a rich source of immunomodulatory compounds with significant potential for therapeutic and prophylactic applications against zoonotic infections.

Key Natural Immunopotentiators and Their Mechanisms

Table 1: Characteristics of Selected Natural Immunopotentiators

Source	Compound Class	Example Compounds	Reported Immunomodulatory Activities	Key Findings from Preclinical Studies
Plants	Saponins	QS-21, Ginsenosides (e.g., Rb1), Tomatine	Stimulates Th1 responses and T-cell activation; induces balanced Th1/Th2 response (Ginsenosides); upregulates IFN-γ [49].	Quil A and QS-21 show hemolytic effects and toxicity in trials; Ginsenoside Rb1 enhanced antibody response in cattle; Tomatine adjuvant was safe in mice and effective in malaria and tularemia vaccines [49].
Plants	Polysaccharides	Inulin (Gamma, Delta/Advax)	Potent humoral and cellular immune response; induces both Th1 (IgG2a, IL-2, IFN-γ) and Th2 (IgG1, IgA, IL-5, IL-6) responses [49].	Advax (delta inulin) tested against influenza, SARS, HIV, Listeria, and hepatitis B; shows little to no side effects and greater temperature stability than gamma inulin [49].
Fungi	β-Glucans	β-1,3-D-glucans, β-1,6-D-glucans	Stimulates innate immune cells via dectin-1 receptor binding; stimulates proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6) [49].	Water-soluble, high-molecular-weight β-glucans show better activity; acid-resistant, ideal for oral administration; extracts from Ganoderma lucidum increased IFN-γ in human PBMCs [49].
Marine/Insects	Glycolipids/Peptides	α-Galactosylceramide, Chitosan, Bee Venom Peptides	Establishes adjuvant activity; chitosan commonly produced from shrimp chitin [49].	α-Galactosylceramide originally obtained from a marine sponge [49].

Experimental Protocols for Screening Natural Immunomodulators

Protocol 1: In Vitro Immunostimulation Assay for Natural Compounds

• Objective: To assess the innate immune-stimulating potential of a natural compound extract on human monocytic cells.
• Cell Line: THP-1 (human monocytic cell line).
• Procedure:
  • Culture THP-1 cells in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% FBS and 1% penicillin-streptomycin at 37°C in a 5% COâ‚‚ incubator.
  • Seed cells in 24-well plates at a density of 5 x 10⁵ cells per well.
  • After 24 hours, treat cells with the test compound (e.g., a fungal β-glucan extract) at a range of concentrations (e.g., 25, 50, and 100 μg/mL). Include a vehicle control (e.g., DMSO <0.1%) and a positive control (e.g., LPS at 100 ng/mL).
  • Incubate for 3 and 6 hours.
  • Harvest cells and extract total RNA.
  • Quantify gene expression of pro-inflammatory markers (e.g., TNF-α, IL-1β, COX-2) using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Normalize data to housekeeping genes (e.g., GAPDH) and express as fold change relative to the vehicle control [49].
• Key Reagents: THP-1 cells, RPMI-1640 medium, FBS, test compound, LPS, TRIzol reagent, qRT-PCR kit, primers for TNF-α, IL-1β, COX-2, GAPDH.

Protocol 2: Adjuvant Efficacy Testing in a Murine Model

• Objective: To evaluate the adjuvant activity of a plant-derived saponin (e.g., Ginsenoside Rb1) co-administered with a model antigen.
• Animals: BALB/c mice (6-8 weeks old, n=8-10 per group).
• Immunization:
  • Formulate the antigen (e.g., 5 μg of ovalbumin, OVA) with or without the test adjuvant (e.g., 10 μg Ginsenoside Rb1).
  • Administer the formulation to mice via subcutaneous injection on day 0 and boost on day 21.
  • Include control groups: antigen alone, antigen with a reference adjuvant (e.g., Quil A or Alum), and placebo (PBS).
• Sample Collection and Analysis:
  • Collect serum samples bi-weekly via retro-orbital bleeding.
  • Analyze antigen-specific antibody titers (total IgG, IgG1, IgG2a) using ELISA.
  • Two weeks post-boost, sacrifice mice, isolate splenocytes, and restimulate ex vivo with OVA.
  • Measure T-cell cytokines (IL-2, IL-5, IFN-γ) in culture supernatants using a multiplex bead-based assay or ELISA to determine Th1/Th2 bias [49].
• Key Reagents: BALB/c mice, OVA, Ginsenoside Rb1, Quil A, Alum, ELISA plates, coating antibodies, detection antibodies, cytokine assay kits, cell culture medium.

Diagram 1: Immunomodulation by natural compounds. Natural compounds like saponins and β-glucans engage pattern recognition receptors on innate immune cells, triggering cytokine release that orchestrates a balanced Th1/Th2 adaptive immune response, leading to enhanced antibody production and potential cross-species protection against zoonoses.

Vaccine Development and Adjuvant Selection in a One Health Framework

A core principle of One Health vaccinology is the potential development of single vaccine formulations effective across multiple susceptible species, from wildlife and livestock to humans. A major challenge is that adjuvants suitable for one species can be ineffective or unsafe in another [48].

Comparative Analysis of Human and Veterinary Adjuvants

Table 2: Adjuvants in Licensed Vaccines and One Health Suitability

Adjuvant Type	Mode of Action	Representative Examples	Key Advantages	Disadvantages / Species-Specific Concerns	One Health Suitability
Mineral Salts	Retain antigen at injection site; induce Th2 responses.	Alhydrogel, Adjuphos	Good safety profile in humans; low cost; strong humoral response.	Poor Th1 induction; high reactogenicity in felines (can cause injection site sarcomas) [48].	Low: Unsuitable for cats.
Oil Emulsions	Form antigen depot; induce inflammatory cytokines.	MF59, AS03, Emulsigen-D	Strong Th2 immunity; low cost; long-term immunity.	Mineral oil emulsions (e.g., Freund's) are too reactogenic for humans; can cause granulomas [48].	Variable: Squalene-based (MF59) show promise; mineral oil types not for humans.
Immune-Stimulating Complexes (ISCOM)	Activate inflammasome; induce T cell & humoral responses.	Quil A, QS-21, ISCOM, VetSap	Strong humoral and cellular immune response.	Potential toxicity; hemolysis; granulomas; local inflammatory reactions [49] [48].	Moderate: Toxicity concerns require careful dosing.
Polysaccharides	Stimulate cellular & humoral immunity via DC-SIGN.	Delta inulin (Advax)	Does not require antigen adsorption; can be combined; good safety profile.	None major identified in research to date [48].	High: Safe and effective across species.
Combination Adjuvants	Combines immune stimulators with delivery systems.	Advax-CpG55.2, Alum + MPLA	Enhances both Th1 and Th2 immunity.	See individual component data.	High: Broad species activity and safety.

Promising One Health Adjuvant Candidates

Based on current evidence, two adjuvant platforms stand out for their broad species compatibility:

• Squalene Oil Emulsions (e.g., MF59): Already licensed for human influenza vaccines, squalene-based emulsions have also demonstrated safety and efficacy in various animal species, offering a reactogenicity profile acceptable for cross-species use [48].
• Delta Inulin-CpG Combination (Advax-CpG55.2): This combination adjuvant has been shown to be safe and effective in preclinical models across multiple species, including humans. It enhances both Th1 and Th2 immunity, which is critical for protection against diverse pathogens, and is a leading candidate for pan-species vaccines, such as those needed for H5N1 avian influenza outbreaks affecting birds, cattle, cats, and humans [48].

Protocol for Evaluating a One Health Adjuvant

Protocol 3: Cross-Species Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety Testing

• Objective: To compare the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a candidate One Health vaccine formulation in multiple animal species relevant to the zoonotic target.
• Study Design:
  • Species Selection: Choose at least three species: a standard lab model (e.g., mouse), the primary animal reservoir or amplifier (e.g., cattle for H5N1), and a susceptible companion animal species (e.g., cat). Consider adding a poultry model if relevant.
  • Formulation: Formulate a fixed dose of the target antigen with the test adjuvant (e.g., Advax-CpG55.2). Include control groups: antigen alone and antigen with a species-specific licensed adjuvant (e.g., Alum for mice, a veterinary adjuvant for cattle).
  • Immunization: Administer the vaccine intramuscularly or via a relevant route according to standardized dosing schedules for each species. Monitor for immediate adverse reactions.
  • Immunogenicity Assessment:
    • Collect serum pre-vaccination and at regular intervals post-vaccination.
    • Measure antigen-specific neutralizing antibody titers using species-specific ELISA or virus neutralization tests.
    • At endpoint, isolate peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or splenocytes and assess antigen-specific T-cell responses (e.g., IFN-γ ELISpot).
  • Safety and Reactogenicity:
    • Monitor injection sites daily for local reactions (redness, swelling, induration).
    • Record systemic signs (temperature, appetite, behavior).
    • Conduct histopathology of injection sites and draining lymph nodes at study termination to assess tissue damage, granuloma formation, or other pathologies [48].
• Key Reagents: Antigen, test and control adjuvants, species-specific secondary antibodies for ELISA, ELISpot kits, histopathology supplies.

Diagram 2: One Health vaccine development workflow. This integrated pathway outlines the process from pathogen identification through to coordinated deployment, emphasizing parallel efficacy and safety testing in multiple animal species and humans to ensure broad applicability.

Quantitative Frameworks for Prioritization and Surveillance

Effective implementation of One Health strategies requires robust quantitative tools to prioritize threats and evaluate the performance of surveillance systems.

Conjoint Analysis for Zoonotic Disease Prioritization

Conjoint Analysis (CA) is a quantitative market research technique adapted to prioritize zoonotic diseases based on multiple criteria without the bias of disease names. It involves presenting stakeholders with choice tasks containing different combinations of disease characteristics (e.g., mortality, transmissibility, economic impact) and analyzing their preferences to derive weighted scores for each criterion [4].

• Application: This method was used in North America to rank 62 zoonoses. Health professionals and the public were surveyed, and hierarchical Bayes models were fitted to the data to derive importance weights for 21 key criteria, such as incidence, severity, pandemic potential, and economic impact [4].
• Outcome: The result is a rationally derived priority list that can guide resource allocation for research and development of novel therapeutics and vaccines against the most threatening zoonoses.

Evaluating One Health Platform Performance

Assessment tools like the one developed by the Africa CDC provide a structured way to evaluate the operational capacity of One Health platforms, particularly in resource-limited settings.

• Key Indicators: Performance is typically measured across several domains [5]:
  • Legislation & Coordination: Existence of regulatory texts and formal intersectoral coordination mechanisms.
  • Epidemic Detection & Preparedness: Functioning early warning systems and preparedness/response plans.
  • Training & Resources: Availability of trained personnel and essential material resources (e.g., computers, sampling kits, vehicles).
  • Funding: Presence of a dedicated budget line for One Health activities.
• Implementation Insight: A 2023 study in Guinea applying this framework revealed an overall national performance score of 41%, with significant regional disparities and a critical gap in the mobilization of material resources (scoring only 9%) [5]. Such quantitative assessments are vital for identifying weaknesses and informing targeted investments to strengthen the global health security architecture.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for One Health Therapeutic Development

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Specific Examples & Notes
Pattern Recognition Receptor Agonists	To stimulate innate immune pathways in vitro and in vivo for immunopotentiator studies.	TLR ligands (e.g., Poly I:C, CpG ODN), Dectin-1 agonists (e.g., β-Glucans from S. cerevisiae).
Species-Specific Immunoassays	To quantify immune responses (antibodies, cytokines) in different target species.	ELISA kits for bovine IgG, feline IFN-γ, etc.; Multiplex bead arrays validated for multiple species.
Cell Lines and Primary Cells	For in vitro screening of compound toxicity and immunomodulatory activity.	THP-1 (human monocyte), RAW 264.7 (mouse macrophage), primary PBMCs/DCs from target species (e.g., chicken, cow).
Model Antigens	To standardize adjuvant testing and immunization protocols.	Ovalbumin (OVA), Keyhole Limpet Hemocyanin (KLH).
Reference Adjuvants	As positive and negative controls in vaccine formulation studies.	Alum (for Th2 bias), Quil A/QS-21 (for Th1/antibody response), Squalene emulsions (e.g., MF59).
One Health Assessment Tools	To quantitatively evaluate platform performance and disease priority.	Africa CDC evaluation tool, OH-EpiCap, Conjoint Analysis survey instruments [4] [5].
Kadsurenin A	Kadsurenin A	High-purity Kadsurenin A isolated from Piper kadsura. For phytochemical and pharmacological research use only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary use.
Ceplignan	Ceplignan	Ceplignan is a [compound class] for life science research. Explore its applications in [research area]. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.

The development of novel therapeutic platforms against wildlife parasitic zoonoses is vastly strengthened by adopting a One Health perspective. The integration of natural immunomodulatory compounds like saponins and β-glucans, combined with rationally selected cross-species vaccine adjuvants such as Advax-CpG55.2 or squalene emulsions, provides a powerful, synergistic strategy for preemptive and reactive disease management. Future efforts must focus on overcoming the significant implementation barriers identified in field evaluations, including inadequate funding, training, and material resources, particularly in hotspot regions. By leveraging quantitative prioritization tools like Conjoint Analysis and robust platform performance metrics, the global research community can strategically direct resources toward the most pressing threats and ensure that scientific innovation translates into tangible, cross-species health security.

The increasing burden of emerging infectious diseases worldwide, approximately 60-75% of which are zoonotic in origin, confronts researchers with complex challenges that cannot be adequately addressed through singular disciplinary lenses [4] [50]. The Transdisciplinary and social-ecological health frameworks have emerged as essential approaches for understanding the functional prerequisites of health, sustainable vitality, and wellbeing across species and ecosystems [51]. These frameworks recognize that health interconnects species across the planet and offer more effective ways to tackle complex real-world challenges that defy traditional disciplinary boundaries [51] [52]. In the specific context of wildlife parasitic zoonoses research—including pathogens such as Trypanosoma cruzi, Echinococcus spp., Trichinella, and Toxoplasma—transdisciplinary approaches enable researchers to move beyond simplistic host-pathogen interaction models toward a more comprehensive understanding of the social-ecological systems in which these diseases persist and emerge [30] [53]. This technical guide provides a comprehensive framework for implementing transdisciplinary approaches that integrate epidemiology, ecology, and social science methodologies within the broader context of One Health research on wildlife parasitic zoonoses.

Theoretical Foundations and Conceptual Frameworks

Evolution of Integrative Health Concepts

The conceptual foundation for transdisciplinary research in zoonoses has evolved significantly over recent decades. Integrative concepts and practices of health in transdisciplinary social ecology have emerged to contend with linkages between the subjects, attributes, determinants, and fields of health in humans, other species, and their shared ecological systems [52]. These concepts include One Health, EcoHealth, ecosystem health, and planetary health, which together transform human-centered definitions of health toward more inclusive frameworks [52]. Despite their varied terminology and historical development, these integrative concepts share a common recognition that the delineation between social systems and ecosystems is artificial and arbitrary, necessitating approaches that explicitly engage with their interconnectedness [50] [52].

A critical theoretical advancement has been the conceptualization of the zoonotic web (akin to a "food web"), which represents a network of zoonotic actors at human-animal-environment interfaces [30]. This framework extends beyond traditional host-pathogen models to include vectors, food, and environmental sources, offering a more robust foundation for understanding complex transmission dynamics of parasitic zoonoses [30]. The zoonotic web concept enables researchers to characterize the key interfaces where spillover events occur, particularly at human-cattle and human-food interfaces, which network analysis has identified as having an increased probability of zoonotic spillover [30].

Social-Ecological Systems Framework

The social-ecological systems framework provides an essential theoretical foundation for transdisciplinary research on parasitic zoonoses. This framework recognizes humans as both part of nature and fundamentally conditioned by social activity, creating coupled human-natural systems [50]. Within these systems, parasitic zoonoses exist within nested hierarchies operating at multiple levels—molecular, organismal, communal, national, and global—requiring research approaches that can address this complexity [50].

Research into parasite zoonoses and wildlife within this framework demonstrates that human activity is central to zoonotic transmission, with spillover events occurring not only from wildlife to humans and domestic animals but also from domestic foci of transmission to wildlife [53]. This bidirectional flow of parasites establishes novel spill-back reservoirs of potential public health and economic significance, while also threatening wildlife conservation [53]. The social-ecological systems framework thus necessitates consideration of the full spectrum of transmission pathways and their societal drivers.

Table 1: Key Theoretical Frameworks for Transdisciplinary Zoonoses Research

Framework	Core Principles	Application to Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses
One Health	Integrates human, animal, and environmental health	Examines interfaces where parasite transmission occurs between wildlife, domestic animals, and humans
EcoHealth	Emphasizes ecological determinants of health	Investigates how ecosystem changes influence parasite life cycles and transmission dynamics
Social-Ecological Systems	Views social and ecological systems as coupled, complex adaptive systems	Analyzes how societal and ecological factors interact to drive zoonotic disease emergence
Zoonotic Web	Network-based representation of zoonotic actors and their interactions	Maps complex relationships between zoonotic agents, hosts, vectors, food, and environment

Methodological Approaches: Integrating Disciplinary Tools

Transdisciplinary Research Design

Implementing transdisciplinary research requires methodological frameworks that facilitate genuine integration of epidemiological, ecological, and social science approaches. The ecosystem approaches to health provide valuable precedents for research methods that explicitly engage with the ecological and social systems within which health is created and challenged [50]. These approaches emphasize several key design principles:

• Participatory framework: Engagement of diverse stakeholders throughout the research process, from problem definition through to implementation of solutions [50] [52]
• Systems orientation: Consideration of the complex interactions and feedback loops within social-ecological systems [50]
• Knowledge co-creation: Integration of scientific knowledge with local and traditional knowledge systems [52]
• Methodological pluralism: Employment of multiple methods from different disciplines to address research questions [50] [52]

A exemplar of this approach can be found in the Austrian case study that compiled 47 years of data on zoonotic interactions to create a comprehensive zoonotic web [30]. This research employed systematic literature searches, network analysis, and temporal trend analysis to identify key interfaces and communities of zoonotic agent sharing, demonstrating how transdisciplinary approaches can optimize surveillance strategies tailored to regional contexts [30].

Quantitative Integration Methods

Advanced quantitative methods facilitate the integration of diverse data types across disciplinary boundaries. Conjoint Analysis (CA) represents a particularly promising approach for prioritizing zoonotic diseases based on multiple criteria [4]. This method, adapted from market research, treats diseases as "products" described by a set of characteristics and determines their relative priority through analysis of stakeholder preferences [4]. The methodology involves:

• Identification of criteria: Through focus groups using nominal group technique to identify key disease characteristics [4]
• Definition of criterion levels: Assigning 3-4 levels to each criterion according to the range exhibited in the literature [4]
• Experimental design: Developing choice tasks that present participants with disease combinations containing varying levels of criteria [4]
• Statistical analysis: Fitting Hierarchical Bayes models to survey data to derive CA-weighted scores for disease criteria [4]

Network analysis provides another powerful quantitative approach for transdisciplinary research. The Austrian zoonotic web study treated zoonotic interactions as a bipartite network and transformed it into a one-mode projection representing the network of zoonotic agent sharing among zoonotic sources [30]. This approach weighted relationships between zoonotic sources by the number of zoonotic agents they shared, enabling identification of the most influential zoonotic sources and communities of zoonotic agent sharing [30].

Table 2: Quantitative Methods for Transdisciplinary Zoonoses Research

Method	Application	Data Requirements	Analytical Outputs
Conjoint Analysis	Disease prioritization based on multiple criteria	Stakeholder preference data on disease characteristics	Weighted scores for disease criteria; ranked list of priority diseases
Network Analysis	Mapping complex relationships in zoonotic webs	Data on interactions between hosts, pathogens, vectors, and environments	Network metrics identifying key nodes, interfaces, and communities
Social-Ecological Systems Modeling	Simulating disease dynamics in coupled systems	Interdisciplinary data on social, ecological, and epidemiological variables	Predictive models of disease emergence under different scenarios
Spatial Analysis	Identifying hotspots of disease transmission	Georeferenced data on hosts, vectors, human populations, and land use	Risk maps guiding targeted surveillance and intervention

Data Integration Protocols

Effective transdisciplinary research requires robust protocols for integrating diverse data types. The following workflow provides a framework for data integration in wildlife parasitic zoonoses research:

Data Integration Workflow for Transdisciplinary Research

The Austrian zoonotic web study exemplifies this approach, creating a comprehensive dataset with 2128 rows and 48 data fields spanning 47 years of research [30]. Each entry represented one investigated zoonotic agent along with results from animal hosts, vectors, and environmental or food matrices, enabling both temporal trend analysis and cross-sectional network analysis [30].

Field Implementation and Case Applications

Implementing Transdisciplinary Surveillance

Field implementation of transdisciplinary approaches requires surveillance strategies that simultaneously capture epidemiological, ecological, and social data. The Austrian case study demonstrated a 17.8-fold increase in publications on zoonoses between the first (1975-1997) and second half (1998-2022) of the study period, with particular attention to zoonotic bacteria, viruses, and eukaryotes [30]. This research identified 227 unique zoonotic agents investigated in Austria, with ten genera (Salmonella, Escherichia, Listeria, Echinococcus, Orthoflavivirus, Brucella, Toxoplasma, Campylobacter, Trichinella, and Leptospira) collectively accounting for 41% of the selected literature [30].

A critical finding from this research was that most zoonotic agents (76.9%) were studied in wildlife hosts, which accounted for 221 animal species investigated [30]. This highlights the importance of wildlife surveillance within transdisciplinary approaches, though the authors noted that environmental aspects (including environmental media, plant-based food, and vectors) were not considered in studies on zoonotic diseases in Austria until 1997 [30]. Subsequent research demonstrated a gradual increase in scientific attention to these environmental components, primarily driven by a rise in investigations on vectors [30].

Analyzing Spillover Dynamics

Transdisciplinary approaches reveal the complex dynamics of spillover events for parasitic zoonoses. Research on parasite zoonoses and wildlife demonstrates that spillover occurs not only from wildlife to humans and domestic animals but also in the reverse direction, from domestic foci of transmission to wildlife [53]. This bidirectional flow establishes novel spill-back reservoirs of potential public health and economic significance, while also threatening wildlife conservation [53].

The Austrian zoonotic web analysis confirmed the increased probability of zoonotic spillover at human-cattle and human-food interfaces through analysis of One Health 3-cliques (triangular sets of nodes representing human, animal, and environment) [30]. Furthermore, the study characterized six communities of zoonotic agent sharing, whose assembly patterns appeared to be driven by highly connected infectious agents in the zoonotic web, proximity to human, and anthropogenic activities [30]. This community structure provides valuable insights for targeting surveillance and intervention strategies.

Anthropogenic Drivers of Zoonotic Spillover Events

Community Engagement and Knowledge Integration

Transdisciplinary approaches necessitate meaningful engagement with communities and stakeholders beyond academia. The All Hands on Deck ethos emphasizes cooperation and the melding of ideas from all walks of science and life [50]. This approach recognizes that effective responses to emerging infectious diseases require integration of a wide variety of disciplinary knowledge, as well as the inclusion of knowledge from outside of academia [50].

A key methodology for facilitating this integration is the development of communities of practice where knowledge is generated, shared, processed, translated, negotiated, and used [52]. These communities provide the social structures necessary for transdisciplinary collaboration, enabling researchers to conceive the challenges and opportunities of integration collectively [52]. Research on integrative health concepts indicates that while contexts, goals, and rationales vary, these concepts essentially arise from shared interests in living systems [52].

Analytical Tools and Platforms

Implementing transdisciplinary research requires specialized analytical tools capable of integrating and visualizing complex, multidimensional data. The following tools represent essential resources for researchers combining epidemiology, ecology, and social science:

Table 3: Essential Analytical Tools for Transdisciplinary Zoonoses Research

Tool/Platform	Primary Function	Application in Transdisciplinary Research
Network Analysis Software	Analysis of complex relationships between entities	Mapping zoonotic webs identifying key interfaces and transmission pathways
Conjoint Analysis Platforms	Quantitative analysis of multi-criteria decision making	Prioritizing zoonotic diseases based on diverse stakeholder values
Geographic Information Systems	Spatial analysis and visualization	Identifying hotspots of transmission risk at human-animal-environment interfaces
Google Visualization API	Creation of interactive charts and data visualizations	Communicating complex transdisciplinary findings to diverse audiences

The Google Visualization API provides particularly valuable capabilities for creating interactive charts and data visualizations based on pure HTML5/SVG technology [54] [55]. This API enables researchers to develop DataTable objects that represent two-dimensional, mutable tables of values, with each column assigned a specific data type and optional properties including an ID, label, and pattern string [55]. These visualization capabilities are essential for communicating complex transdisciplinary findings to diverse stakeholder groups.

Field Research Reagents and Materials

Field research on wildlife parasitic zoonoses requires specialized reagents and materials for sample collection, preservation, and analysis. The following table details essential research reagents and their applications in transdisciplinary studies:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses Studies

Reagent/Material	Specifications	Application in Transdisciplinary Research
Sample Collection Kits	Standardized kits for diverse sample types	Enable comparable sampling across host species, vectors, and environmental matrices
Molecular Diagnostic Assays	PCR, qPCR, and sequencing reagents	Pathogen detection and characterization across human, animal, and environmental samples
Serological Testing Kits	ELISA, Western blot, and other immunoassays	Detection of exposure to zoonotic parasites in human and animal populations
Environmental DNA Extraction Kits	Specialized reagents for low-concentration samples	Pathogen detection in soil, water, and other environmental media
Geolocation Equipment	GPS units with specified accuracy	Spatial mapping of sample locations for integration with ecological and social data
Structured Interview Protocols	Validated survey instruments	Collection of social science data on human behaviors, perceptions, and exposures

This technical guide has outlined the theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and practical implementations of transdisciplinary research combining epidemiology, ecology, and social science in the study of wildlife parasitic zoonoses. The frameworks and methods presented here provide researchers with essential tools for addressing the complex challenges posed by emerging and endemic parasitic diseases at the human-animal-environment interface.

The continuing evolution of integrative concepts and practices of health in transdisciplinary social ecology points toward an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the linkages between human, animal, and ecosystem health [52]. There is an urgent need for better, coherent, and more deeply integrative health concepts, approaches, and practices to foster the well-being of humans, other animals, and ecosystems [52]. Consideration of these concepts and practices has both methodological and political importance, as it transforms thinking and action on both society and nature, enriching science and practice while expanding their scope and linkages [52].

Future advances in this field will depend on continued development of transdisciplinary health approaches that properly address the multiple facets of health and achieve their appropriate integration for the socio-ecological systems at stake [52]. As researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals implement these approaches, they contribute not only to the control of specific parasitic zoonoses but to the broader development of knowledge systems capable of addressing the complex health challenges of the Anthropocene.

Overcoming Implementation Challenges: Surveillance Gaps, Resistance, and Sectoral Silos

The One Health approach recognizes that the health of people is intimately connected to the health of animals and our shared environment [2]. This interconnectedness is particularly critical when addressing wildlife parasitic zoonoses, where pathogens circulate among animal reservoirs and can spill over into human populations. Effective management of these health threats relies fundamentally on robust diagnostic capabilities, yet significant technical barriers impede accurate detection and surveillance, especially in resource-limited settings [56] [57]. These limitations directly impact early outbreak detection, effective response strategies, and the overall understanding of disease dynamics at the critical human-animal-environment interface.

The challenges are multifaceted, stemming from both the intrinsic complexities of wildlife hosts and the practical constraints of resource-poor environments. Wildlife species present unique diagnostic hurdles, including unknown pathogen diversity, diverse and often inaccessible host species, and a poor understanding of infection dynamics in wild populations [58]. Simultaneously, laboratories and field settings in many regions face severe limitations in financial resources, technical expertise, infrastructure, and access to advanced diagnostic technologies [59] [60]. This article examines these technical barriers within the context of a broader thesis on One Health approaches to wildlife parasitic zoonoses research, providing a detailed analysis of current limitations and potential pathways toward more equitable and effective diagnostic capabilities.

Technical Barriers in Wildlife Hosts

Investigating pathogens in wildlife hosts presents a unique set of challenges that distinguish it from diagnostic work in human or domestic animal medicine. These impediments are largely related to the zoological, behavioral, and ecological characteristics of wildlife populations and to limited access to investigation materials [58].

Fundamental Investigative Challenges

• Host Diversity and Unknown Pathogen Profiles: The immense biodiversity of wildlife hosts means that pathogens exist within a vast and often uncharacterized ecological landscape. Unlike humans or livestock, for which expected pathogen profiles are well-documented, wildlife may harbor novel, emerging, or unexpected infectious agents. This complexity is compounded by the fact that properties conferring pathogenicity depend as much on the host as they do on the microorganism and may be influenced by multiple factors such as environmental stress, pollutants, and other microorganisms [58].

• Accessibility and Sampling Limitations: Free-ranging wildlife is inherently difficult to access, leading to substantial sampling biases. Many surveillance systems rely on convenience sampling (e.g., hunter-harvested animals, roadkill, or animals showing clinical signs), which does not represent the true health status of populations [58]. Capturing healthy animals for sampling is logistically complex, expensive, and may alter animal behavior or physiology, thereby affecting diagnostic results.

• Defining "Health" in Wildlife Populations: Applying standard medical definitions of health to wildlife is problematic. Health has been redefined as "the ability to adapt and to self-manage" – an organism is healthy if it capable of maintaining physiological homeostasis through changing circumstances [58]. Measuring this capacity requires tools for assessing an individual's ability to cope and adapt, which are often lacking for wildlife species. Furthermore, reservoir hosts may carry pathogens asymptomatically, making disease detection based solely on clinical signs ineffective [56] [58].

Diagnostic Test Limitations for Wildlife

Most diagnostic tests are developed and validated for human medicine or domestic animals, creating significant limitations when applied to wildlife species:

• Lack of Validated Assays: Very few diagnostic tests are specifically validated for wildlife species, leading to potential issues with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy [58]. Commercial assays may produce false positives or negatives due to cross-reactions with wildlife-specific pathogens or immune factors.

• Unknown Effects of Stress and Physiology: The stress of capture and handling can alter wildlife physiology in ways that affect diagnostic parameters. These effects are poorly quantified for most species, complicating result interpretation [58].

• Sample Quality and Degradation: Field conditions often compromise sample quality through delayed processing, improper storage, or contamination. These factors are particularly problematic for molecular diagnostics, where sample degradation can profoundly impact results [58].

Table 1: Key Challenges in Wildlife Health Investigations and Their Implications

Challenge	Specific Limitations	Impact on Diagnostic Accuracy
Host Diversity	Unknown pathogen profiles; uncharacterized immune responses	Inability to detect novel pathogens; false negatives
Sampling Biases	Over-representation of clinically ill or easily captured animals	Skewed prevalence estimates; missed subclinical infections
Diagnostic Validation	Tests optimized for domestic species, not wildlife	Unknown test performance characteristics; potential cross-reactivity
Sample Degradation	Delayed processing in field conditions	Nucleic acid degradation; reduced viability of cultures
Reference Intervals	Lack of established normal physiological parameters	Difficulty distinguishing health from disease states

Technical Barriers in Resource-Limited Settings

Resource-limited settings face a distinct set of challenges that compound the inherent difficulties of wildlife diagnostics. These constraints affect every stage of the diagnostic process, from sample collection to result interpretation and reporting.

Infrastructure and Resource Constraints

The core infrastructure limitations in resource-limited settings create fundamental barriers to effective diagnostic services for wildlife zoonoses:

• Limited Laboratory Capacity: Many regions lack basic laboratory equipment, reliable electricity, temperature-controlled storage, and internet connectivity essential for modern diagnostic work [60]. This limitation is particularly acute for molecular methods that require precise temperature control and uninterrupted power supply.

• Financial Constraints: High costs of commercial diagnostic kits, reagents, and equipment maintenance place advanced technologies beyond reach for many laboratories [59] [60]. This financial limitation often forces reliance on less accurate but more affordable methods, compromising surveillance quality.

• Supply Chain Issues: Unreliable supply chains for critical reagents, consumables, and equipment parts can halt diagnostic operations for extended periods. This problem is especially pronounced in remote areas where wildlife zoonoses surveillance is most needed [60].

Human Resource and Technical Capacity

The success of diagnostic systems depends heavily on human expertise, which is often limited in resource-constrained settings:

• Technical Expertise Gaps: Complex diagnostic techniques require specialized training that may be unavailable in many regions [61] [60]. Without adequate training and quality assurance programs, even well-equipped laboratories may produce unreliable results.

• Workforce Shortages: Many facilities operate with insufficient staff, leading to workload pressures that compromise attention to detail and adherence to standardized protocols [60]. High staff turnover further exacerbates these challenges.

• Limited Access to Knowledge Resources: Restricted access to current scientific literature, technical guidelines, and expert consultation isolates professionals from advances in the field [60].

Method-Specific Limitations in Resource-Poor Contexts

Different diagnostic methodologies present unique challenges in resource-limited settings:

• Molecular Diagnostics (e.g., PCR): While PCR and related methods offer high sensitivity and specificity, they require sophisticated equipment, trained personnel, and reliable reagent supply chains [61]. Real-time PCR, despite its advantages in speed and contamination reduction, requires even more specialized equipment and expensive reagents [61].

• Antigen Detection Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-RDTs): These tests offer practical advantages as they are inexpensive, faster, and easy to use [59]. However, this comes at the cost of reduced sensitivity compared to molecular methods. A meta-analysis of COVID-19 Ag-RDTs in low- and middle-income countries demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 78.2% and specificity of 99.5% [59], approaching but not meeting the minimum performance requirements for outbreak detection.

• Serological Assays: While generally more accessible than molecular methods, serological tests require validation for local wildlife species and may not distinguish between current and past infections. Proper storage of reagents is also a challenge without consistent refrigeration [58].

Table 2: Comparison of Diagnostic Method Limitations in Resource-Limited Settings

Method	Key Advantages	Key Limitations in Resource-Limited Settings	Infrastructure Requirements
Conventional PCR	High sensitivity and specificity; broad pathogen detection	Contamination risk; requires specialized equipment; expensive reagents	Thermocycler, electrophoresis equipment, reliable power
Real-time PCR	Rapid results; quantitative; reduced contamination risk	Higher equipment costs; technical expertise needed; complex troubleshooting	Real-time PCR instrument, computer, stable power supply
Antigen RDTs	Low cost; rapid results; minimal training needed	Lower sensitivity; limited multiplexing capability; quality variability	Minimal; possible reading device
Serology	Detects immune response; useful for surveillance	Cannot detect active infection; requires species-specific validation	ELISA readers, washers (for some formats)
Culture	Gold standard for viability; allows further characterization	Prolonged time-to-result; requires viable organisms; biosafety concerns	Incubators, biosafety cabinets, sterile supplies

Integrated One Health Surveillance: Challenges and Workflows

A effective One Health approach to diagnosing wildlife parasitic zoonoses requires integrated surveillance systems that simultaneously address human, animal, and environmental health. However, significant technical and operational challenges impede the implementation of such integrated systems.

Technical and Operational Barriers to Integration

• Data Silos and Interoperability: Human, animal, and environmental health data are typically collected by different sectors using incompatible systems and standards [57] [62]. This lack of interoperability prevents the data integration necessary for understanding transmission dynamics across species and ecosystems.

• Diagnostic Standardization Challenges: Different sectors often use different diagnostic methods, making direct comparison of results difficult [58] [57]. Harmonizing diagnostic approaches across wildlife, domestic animal, and human health sectors remains a significant challenge.

• Limited Diagnostic Capacity at Human-Animal-Environment Interfaces: Critical interfaces where transmission occurs (e.g., wildlife-livestock-human contact points) often have the least diagnostic capacity [57]. This creates surveillance blind spots exactly where early detection is most critical.

The following diagram illustrates the complex workflow and multiple potential failure points in integrated zoonotic disease surveillance:

Integrated Zoonoses Surveillance Workflow and Barriers

Diagnostic Test Validation and Performance Challenges

A critical technical barrier in both wildlife hosts and resource-limited settings is the validation of diagnostic tests. The process of test validation presents particular challenges:

• Gold Standard Limitations: For many emerging wildlife zoonoses, no true gold standard test exists, making validation problematic [58]. This is particularly true for novel pathogens where the only available comparator may be another imperfect test.

• Species-Specific Validation Requirements: Tests validated for one wildlife species may perform differently in others due to genetic variations, immune responses, or pathogen strains [58]. Comprehensive multi-species validation is rarely feasible due to cost and sample availability constraints.

• Environmental Impacts on Test Performance: Field conditions in resource-limited settings, including extreme temperatures, humidity, and dust, can affect test reagents and equipment in ways not encountered in controlled laboratory environments [59] [60].

The relationship between cycle threshold (Ct) values and test sensitivity illustrates one key diagnostic challenge. While RT-PCR tests generally show an inverse relationship between Ct values and antigen test sensitivity (lower Ct values indicate higher viral loads and better detection), this relationship is not always consistent, particularly with wildlife samples where viral dynamics may differ [59].

Innovative Approaches and Solutions

Despite these significant challenges, technological innovations and adapted methodologies offer promising pathways to overcome diagnostic barriers in resource-limited settings and wildlife hosts.

Adapted Methodologies and Technologies

• Syndromic Surveillance and Triangulation Approaches: Given the limitations of individual diagnostic tests, combining multiple data sources through triangulation enhances detection capability [58]. This includes integrating clinical observations, pathological findings, and multiple diagnostic test results to build a composite picture of disease status.

• Digital Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Tools: These tools are increasingly valuable in supporting diagnostic decision-making where specialist expertise is limited [60]. Well-designed CDS tools can integrate patient-specific data with clinical knowledge to support evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. For wildlife health, CDS tools show particular promise in enabling non-specialists to conduct preliminary diagnoses in remote settings [60].

• Point-of-Care and Field-Based Diagnostics: Development of rugged, portable diagnostic equipment suitable for field use can help overcome infrastructure limitations [59]. Similarly, heat-stable reagents and simplified sample processing methods reduce dependence on cold chains and complex laboratory setups.

Capacity Building and Collaborative Models

• Multidisciplinary Teams and Knowledge Sharing: Successful wildlife health investigations require integrating expertise from veterinary medicine, ecology, molecular biology, and epidemiology [58] [62]. Creating frameworks for such collaboration enhances diagnostic capability.

• Training and Capacity Development: Investments in developing local expertise through hands-on training, mentorship programs, and sustainable educational resources build long-term diagnostic capacity [58] [60].

• Diagnostic Test Development and Local Production: Developing and validating diagnostic tests specifically for priority wildlife zoonoses in target regions addresses the limitation of tests developed for domestic species [58]. Local production of reagents and test kits can mitigate supply chain issues and reduce costs.

Research Reagent Solutions for Wildlife Zoonoses Diagnostics

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Their Applications in Wildlife Zoonoses Investigation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Primary Functions	Considerations for Resource-Limited Settings
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Silica-membrane based kits, magnetic bead systems	Isolation of DNA/RNA from diverse sample types; removal of PCR inhibitors	Temperature stability; shelf life; minimal equipment requirements
PCR Master Mixes	Lyophilized reagents, room-temperature-stable formulations	Amplification of target pathogen sequences; contains polymerase, dNTPs, buffer	Reduced cold chain dependency; pre-mixed to minimize pipetting steps
Positive Controls	Synthetic genes, inactivated viral particles, plasmid constructs	Verification of assay performance; quantification standards	Non-infectious alternatives for biosafety; stability without freezing
Primers and Probes	Broad-range consensus primers, pathogen-specific probes	Specific detection of target sequences in conventional and real-time PCR	Stability at ambient temperatures; lyophilized formats
Rapid Test Components	Nitrocellulose membranes, gold-conjugated antibodies, recombinant antigens	Construction of lateral flow assays for antigen or antibody detection	Stability in high humidity; simplified manufacturing requirements

Technical barriers to diagnosing wildlife parasitic zoonoses in resource-limited settings represent a critical vulnerability in global health security. These limitations directly impact our ability to detect emerging threats, monitor disease dynamics, and implement timely control measures. The challenges are profound, spanning from fundamental biological complexities of wildlife hosts to practical constraints of infrastructure, resources, and expertise in many regions.

However, the growing recognition of these challenges within a One Health framework offers promising pathways forward. By adopting integrated surveillance approaches, developing adapted technologies suitable for field use, building local capacity, and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration, we can progressively overcome these barriers. The development of point-of-care diagnostics, digital decision support tools, and specifically validated tests for wildlife hosts will be particularly valuable in strengthening diagnostic capabilities.

Ultimately, addressing these diagnostic limitations requires sustained investment and commitment to equitable global health security. As the boundaries between human, animal, and environmental health continue to blur in our interconnected world, strengthening our ability to detect and characterize wildlife zoonotic threats remains an essential investment in preventing future pandemics and protecting global health.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a critical global public health threat that extends significantly into the realm of parasitic diseases. The One Health approach recognizes that the health of humans, animals, plants, and their shared environments are inextricably interconnected, and this is particularly relevant for understanding and containing the spread of drug-resistant parasites [63] [1]. Parasitic diseases, including malaria, schistosomiasis, and leishmaniasis, affect millions worldwide and are increasingly compromised by rising drug resistance [63]. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in 2020 alone, there were approximately 241 million cases of malaria globally, resulting in about 627,000 deaths, with most occurring among children in sub-Saharan Africa [63]. The management of these diseases is further complicated by the fact that parasites can develop resistance to multiple drugs, rendering many available treatments ineffective [64].

The drivers of parasitic AMR are complex and multifactorial, stratified into AMR-specific drivers that directly relate to drug use and misuse across human, animal, and plant health, and AMR-sensitive drivers that facilitate the spread of resistant parasites through suboptimal water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) provisions, inadequate infection prevention and control, and environmental contamination [65]. Climate change further exacerbates this situation by altering the geographic range of disease vectors such as mosquitoes, thereby expanding the reach of diseases like malaria and dengue fever [63]. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical guide for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working to address drug-resistant parasites within integrated One Health frameworks.

The global burden of parasitic diseases demonstrates significant health impacts across human and animal populations. Comprehensive surveillance data is essential for understanding resistance patterns and formulating effective interventions.

Table 1: Global Burden of Selected Parasitic Diseases

Parasitic Disease	Estimated Global Cases/Year	Estimated Annual Mortality	Primary Populations Affected	Regions of Highest Prevalence
Malaria	241 million (2020) [63]	627,000 [63]	Children under 5 [63]	Sub-Saharan Africa [63]
Schistosomiasis	Not specified in search results	Not specified in search results	Not specified in search results	Tropical and subtropical regions [63]
Leishmaniasis	Not specified in search results	Not specified in search results	Not specified in search results	Tropical and subtropical regions [63]
Echinococcosis	Not specified in search results	19,300 [63]	Not specified in search results	Hyperendemic areas (livestock prevalence 20-95%) [63]

Table 2: Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns in Zoonotic Pathogens in Southeast Asia (Representative Example)

Pathogen	Host/Setting	Resistance Patterns	Region	Citation
Salmonella spp.	Chickens	Increased resistance to chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, and colistin [64]	Malaysia [64]	[64]
Escherichia coli	Patients with urinary tract infections	Highest resistance rate to ampicillin [64]	Malaysia [64]	[64]
E. coli, Aeromonas sp, Vibrio sp	Aquaculture	Multidrug-resistant patterns frequently reported [64]	Southeast Asia [64]	[64]

One Health Framework for Parasitic AMR Surveillance

A robust, multi-sectoral surveillance system is fundamental to tracking the emergence and spread of drug-resistant parasites across human, animal, and environmental interfaces. The WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) represents a critical global infrastructure for this purpose, with 135 countries, territories, and areas committed to contributing data as of December 2023 [66]. The updated GLASS dashboard launched in September 2024 provides visual representations of global and regional AMR data, though its current focus is primarily on bacterial and fungal pathogens [66]. Expanding this infrastructure to include dedicated surveillance for parasitic AMR is an essential future direction.

The following diagram illustrates an integrated One Health surveillance workflow for monitoring parasitic AMR, adaptable from existing AMR surveillance models:

Integrated One Health Surveillance Workflow for Parasitic AMR

Complementing global surveillance efforts, regional networks play a crucial role. The Southeast Asian One Health Universities Network, established in 2011, aims to build workforce capacity through education and training, equipping the next generation of professionals with skills to address interconnected health challenges [64]. Similarly, the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Animal Health and Zoonosis facilitates cooperation among member states to speed up regional coordination for preventing and controlling zoonotic diseases [64].

Experimental Methodologies for Drug-Resistant Parasite Research

In Vitro Drug Susceptibility Testing

Protocol: Microdilution Assay for Antiparasitic Drug Susceptibility

• Parasite Culture: Maintain continuous cultures of target parasites (e.g., Plasmodium falciparum, Leishmania spp.) in appropriate medium supplemented with necessary sera and growth factors at optimal temperature and gas conditions (e.g., 37°C with 5% CO2 for Plasmodium).
• Drug Preparation: Prepare serial dilutions of ant parasitic drugs (e.g., artemisinin, praziquantel, miltefosine) in culture-compatible solvent, typically spanning a range of 0.1 nM to 100 μM, depending on the expected IC50.
• Plate Inoculation: Dispense 100 μL of drug dilutions into 96-well microtiter plates. Include drug-free control wells for maximum growth and blank wells for background correction.
• Parasite Addition: Add 100 μL of parasite suspension (synchronized at appropriate life stage, e.g., ring stages for Plasmodium) to achieve predetermined densities (e.g., 1-2% parasitemia for malaria, 1x10^5 promastigotes/mL for Leishmania).
• Incubation: Incubate plates for a standardized period (e.g., 72 hours for malaria, 48-72 hours for Leishmania) under optimal culture conditions.
• Viability Assessment:
  • For Plasmodium: Use hypoxanthine incorporation assay or SYBR Green I fluorescence-based method to quantify parasite growth.
  • For Leishmania: Use colorimetric assays like MTT or alamarBlue to measure metabolic activity.
  • For helminths: Use larval development assays or motility-based scoring systems.
• Data Analysis: Calculate percentage growth inhibition relative to drug-free controls. Determine half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values using non-linear regression analysis (sigmoidal dose-response curve fitting) in software such as GraphPad Prism.

Molecular Characterization of Resistance Mechanisms

Protocol: PCR-Based Detection of Resistance Markers

• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Isolate genomic DNA/RNA from parasite samples (clinical isolates, animal hosts, or vectors) using commercial kits with modifications for specific parasite types. For RNA viruses, perform reverse transcription.
• Primer Design: Design oligonucleotide primers flanking known resistance-associated genes or mutations:
  • Plasmodium: pfk13 (artemisinin resistance), pfcrt, pfmdr1 (chloroquine and other antimalarials)
  • Leishmania: Gene amplification or mutations affecting drug uptake or activation
• Amplification: Perform polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using optimized conditions: initial denaturation (95°C for 3-5 min), 35-40 cycles of denaturation (95°C for 30 sec), annealing (primer-specific temperature for 30-45 sec), extension (72°C for 1 min/kb), and final extension (72°C for 5-10 min).
• Mutation Analysis:
  • Sequencing: Purify PCR products and perform Sanger sequencing. Analyze sequences using alignment software (e.g., BioEdit, Geneious) to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
  • Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP): Digest PCR products with restriction enzymes that cut specifically at wild-type or mutant sequences. Visualize fragment patterns by gel electrophoresis.
• Advanced Techniques: For high-throughput screening, implement real-time PCR with allele-specific probes or next-generation sequencing for comprehensive genomic analysis of resistance determinants.

The relationship between molecular resistance mechanisms and their functional consequences can be visualized as follows:

Molecular Mechanisms of Parasitic Drug Resistance

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Parasitic AMR Investigations

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Research Function	Application Notes
Culture Media	RPMI-1640 (Plasmodium), Schneider's Insect Medium (Leishmania)	In vitro parasite maintenance and drug exposure studies	Requires species-specific supplementation with sera, nutrients, and growth factors [63]
Reference Compounds	Artemisinin, Chloroquine, Praziquantel, Miltefosine	Drug susceptibility assay controls and standardization	Source from recognized authorities (e.g., WHO, MMV) for quality assurance
Molecular Biology Kits	Nucleic acid extraction kits, PCR master mixes, sequencing reagents	Genetic characterization of resistance markers	Select kits validated for specific parasite matrices (blood, tissue, feces)
Viability Assay Kits	SYBR Green I, MTT, alamarBlue, ATP-based luminescence	Quantification of parasite growth inhibition	Optimization required for different parasite life stages and species
Antibodies	Species-specific monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies	Immunodetection in phenotypic assays	Useful for species identification and load quantification in mixed infections
Montixanthone	Montixanthone, MF:C14H10O6, MW:274.22 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Angulatin B	Angulatin B, MF:C34H46O15, MW:694.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Integrated Intervention Strategies Across One Health Sectors

Addressing drug-resistant parasites requires coordinated interventions across human, animal, and environmental sectors. The following table summarizes key strategic approaches:

Table 4: One Health Intervention Strategies Against Parasitic AMR

Intervention Category	Human Health Sector	Animal Health Sector	Environmental Sector
Surveillance & Diagnostics	Strengthen reporting of treatment failures; expand molecular surveillance for resistance markers [64]	Implement AMR monitoring in veterinary parasites; regulate antiparasitic use [64]	Monitor vectors and intermediate hosts for resistance development [65]
Drug Stewardship	Implement evidence-based treatment guidelines; restrict over-the-counter antiparasitic sales [64]	Enforce veterinary prescription requirements; phase out prophylactic use [65]	Monitor environmental contamination with antiparasitic drugs [65]
Prevention & Control	Improve sanitation infrastructure; promote bed net use; develop vaccines [65]	Implement animal vaccination; improve biosecurity and husbandry [64]	Vector control programs; manage water sources to reduce transmission [63]
Policy & Governance	National action plans on AMR; interagency collaboration [64]	Regulate medicated feeds; ban antibiotic growth promoters [65]	Implement wastewater treatment to reduce drug residues [65]

The "One Health" approach is officially defined as "a collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approach — working at the local, regional, national, and global levels — with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment" [2]. This approach is operationalized through frameworks that span the entire antimicrobial lifecycle from research and development to disposal [65]. The newly adopted IUCN Programme 2026–2029, "Nature 2030: One Nature, One Future," further embeds One Health as one of eight global transformations, recognizing its essential role in addressing interconnected health challenges [67].

Successful implementation of these integrated strategies requires breaking down traditional silos between disciplines and sectors. As demonstrated by initiatives like Sri Lanka's rabies control program, which integrated mass canine vaccination, human post-exposure prophylaxis, and public education through cross-sectoral collaboration, this approach can produce dramatic reductions in disease incidence [68]. Similarly, Thailand's "raised-without-antibiotics" initiative in swine farms demonstrates how regulatory approaches can reduce antimicrobial selection pressure [64].

The challenge of drug-resistant parasites represents a complex and evolving threat that demands sustained investigation and intervention through a One Health lens. Future efforts must focus on several critical areas: First, expanding global surveillance systems like WHO's GLASS to include more comprehensive tracking of parasitic AMR [66]. Second, strengthening regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to ensure appropriate use of antiparasitic agents across human and animal health sectors [64]. Third, investing in research and development for novel therapeutic approaches, including new drug candidates, alternative treatment strategies, and vaccines [69].

The European Partnership on One Health Antimicrobial Resistance (EUP OHAMR), launching its first calls in 2025, represents the type of coordinated international effort required to address these challenges, with over 340 million EUR committed to boost One Health AMR research and innovation [69]. Similarly, academic initiatives like the Southeast Asian One Health Universities Network are crucial for building the next generation of transdisciplinary professionals equipped to tackle parasitic AMR [64].

As climate change, habitat destruction, and increasing global interconnectedness continue to alter parasite-host dynamics, the One Health approach provides an essential framework for developing effective, sustainable solutions to preserve the efficacy of antiparasitic treatments and protect global health security [63] [67].

The One Health approach is an integrated, unifying concept that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, recognizing their close interconnection and interdependence [70]. Despite this conceptual framework, the operationalization of One Health faces significant implementation barriers, with cross-sectoral communication breakdowns representing a critical challenge that undermines effective collaboration against wildlife parasitic zoonoses [5] [71] [72]. These breakdowns manifest as fragmented disease reporting systems, isolated data repositories, and disjointed outbreak responses that ultimately compromise public health resilience and zoonotic disease control [73] [30].

Research on zoonotic diseases has disproportionately increased compared to general health studies, with an 18-fold rise in publications nationally and internationally over recent decades [30]. Yet, this growing scientific interest has not translated into effective operational integration. The complex ecology of zoonotic diseases necessitates considering multi-source, multi-agent systems, including host-pathogen community assemblages, environmental reservoirs, and vector involvement [30]. Understanding these complex relationships requires robust communication channels between human, veterinary, and environmental sectors—channels that remain underdeveloped in most regions [5] [73].

This technical guide examines the structural, operational, and systemic barriers impeding cross-sectoral communication within the One Health framework, with particular emphasis on implications for wildlife parasitic zoonoses research. It further provides evidence-based solutions and methodological approaches to bridge these disciplinary divides, offering researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals practical tools to enhance collaborative outcomes.

Quantifying the Communication Gap

Documenting Sectoral Fragmentation

The communication gaps between human, veterinary, and environmental sectors are not merely perceptual but are reflected in quantifiable disparities in infrastructure, resource allocation, and operational capacity. Evaluation of One Health platforms in Guinea revealed an overall performance score of just 41%, with none of the eight assessed regions reaching the 60% performance threshold considered minimal for effective implementation [5]. This performance deficit was particularly pronounced in specific operational domains, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Performance Assessment of One Health Platforms in Guinea Across Key Indicators [5]

Evaluation Indicator	Performance Score	Key Deficiencies
Legislation (LID)	89% (Conakry region)	Variable adoption across regions
Material Resources (RMID)	9% (all regions)	Critical shortage of essential equipment
Coordination (CID)	41% (national average)	Weak formal consultation mechanisms
Funding (FID)	Below 60% (all regions)	Lack of dedicated budget lines
Training of Actors (FPID)	Below 60% (all regions)	Insufficient training programs

Similar fragmentation is evident in higher-income settings. In the United States, a survey of 4,144 licensed veterinarians across four states revealed that when faced with unusual infectious diseases in companion animals or livestock, most would notify state agricultural agencies rather than public health entities, with 28% unaware if their community even had a local public health agency [74]. This communication disconnect impedes the recognition of simultaneous human and animal outbreaks, as exemplified by the 1999 West Nile virus outbreak in New York City, where dying crows with neurologic symptoms were observed for a month before the connection was made to human cases [74].

Structural Barriers to Effective Collaboration

Multiple structural barriers perpetuate these communication breakdowns. Systematic reviews of the literature have identified several categorical obstacles that need to be addressed for successful One Health implementation [72]:

• Siloed Disciplines and Sectors: Different health sectors often operate independently, with limited interaction. Public health professionals, veterinarians, and environmental scientists frequently work in isolation, leading to missed collaborative opportunities [72].
• Differing Priorities and Funding Mechanisms: Each sector maintains distinct priorities and funding streams that may conflict with other sectors' objectives, hindering alignment and coordination [72].
• Lack of Common Language: Technical jargon and disciplinary-specific terminology create communication barriers, while differences in conceptual frameworks prevent effective dialogue and collaborative problem-solving [72].
• Institutional and Policy Fragmentation: Separate governmental bodies and agencies typically develop and implement policies related to human health, animal health, and environmental conservation. This fragmentation complicates coordinated responses to health threats [72].

Additional constraints emerge at the professional level. The veterinary profession, for instance, faces structural challenges including corporate consolidation, fee-for-service models that disincentivize non-revenue activities, and significant student debt that pushes graduates toward companion animal practice rather than public health roles [70]. These factors limit veterinarians' capacity to function as One Health communicators despite their strategic position at the human-animal interface.

Consequences for Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses Research and Control

Implications for Disease Surveillance and Outbreak Response

Communication breakdowns directly impact the effectiveness of surveillance systems and outbreak responses for wildlife parasitic zoonoses. In Guadeloupe, despite the existence of both veterinary and public health surveillance components for West Nile virus, sectoral communication limitations have resulted in a primarily segmented approach that has only recently begun shifting toward integrated surveillance [71]. Similarly, Uruguay demonstrates how systemic gaps in animal welfare regulation and multi-species governance can amplify underreported zoonotic threats, reflecting a structural disconnect between One Welfare principles and policy implementation [73].

The consequences of these disconnects are particularly acute for parasitic diseases in small animals, which pose significant challenges to public health, animal health, and environmental sustainability [75]. As noted in recent parasitology research, "The success of the One Health concept now requires breaking down the interdisciplinary barriers that still separate human and veterinary medicine from ecological, evolutionary, and environmental sciences" [75]. Without integrated communication channels, surveillance systems remain incomplete, compromising early detection and intervention capabilities.

Research Gaps and Biases

Communication silos create significant knowledge gaps in understanding the complex ecology of zoonotic diseases. In Austria, analysis of 47 years of zoonosis research revealed substantial disparities in investigation focus, with 76.9% of zoonotic agent studies conducted in wildlife hosts, while research on food products predominantly concentrated on animal-origin products, with plant-based foods accounting for only 5.6% of examined foodstuffs [30]. This biased research distribution creates an incomplete picture of transmission pathways and potential reservoirs.

Furthermore, critical environmental aspects were largely neglected in Austrian zoonotic disease studies until 1997, demonstrating the most gradual increase in scientific interest compared to human and animal foci [30]. Such research imbalances directly reflect communication gaps between disciplines and limit comprehensive understanding of the environmental drivers of parasitic zoonoses emergence and transmission.

Methodological Frameworks for Strengthening Communication

Network Analysis for Mapping Zoonotic Interfaces

Network analysis offers a powerful methodological approach for identifying and visualizing communication nodes and pathways within complex zoonotic systems. This approach introduces the concept of a "zoonotic web" – a network representation of zoonotic actors at human-animal-environment interfaces akin to a food web [30]. The methodology for constructing such networks involves systematic data compilation and analytical visualization, as outlined below.

Table 2: Methodological Protocol for Zoonotic Web Network Analysis [30]

Research Phase	Protocol Description	Output
Data Collection	Systematic literature search compiling naturally occurring zoonotic interactions across hosts, vectors, food, and environmental sources	Standardized dataset with documented zoonotic interactions
Network Construction	Create bipartite network transformed into one-mode projection representing zoonotic agent sharing among sources	Zoonotic web mapping relationships between zoonotic sources
Network Analysis	Apply network centrality metrics and community detection algorithms to identify key actors and interfaces	Identification of influential zoonotic sources and transmission communities
Interface Identification	Analyze One Health 3-cliques (human, animal, environment) to pinpoint spillover hotspots	Prioritized list of high-risk interfaces for targeted surveillance

This network-based approach facilitates the development of locally relevant One Health strategies by mapping specific transmission chains and identifying critical control points. The analytical workflow can be visualized as follows:

Evaluation Framework for Collaborative Initiatives

A structured evaluation framework provides another methodological tool for assessing and improving cross-sectoral communication. Research in Guadeloupe developed and applied an operational OH framework to critically assess collaborative initiatives addressing local health issues [71]. This methodology involves:

• Defining Evaluation Criteria: Establishing 13 opinion-based key criteria for successful One Health collaboration through expert consultation and literature review [71].
• Data Collection through Semi-Structured Interviews: Conducting guided interviews with initiative participants to assess performance across established criteria [71].
• Scoring and Gap Analysis: Applying a standardized scoring system to identify strengths, weaknesses, and operational levers for improvement [71].

This systematic approach moves beyond conceptual discussion to provide actionable insights for enhancing communication and collaboration in existing and future initiatives. The framework is sufficiently flexible to be adapted to various contexts and resource levels.

Strategies for Bridging Communication Gaps

Governance and Institutional Structures

Effective governance structures are fundamental to overcoming communication barriers. The United States has established a coordinated mechanism through the U.S. One Health Coordination Unit (U.S. OHCU), which involves 24 agencies from eight departments related to public health, agriculture, wildlife, environment, development, international affairs, commerce, defense, and security [72]. This governance model employs several key strategies:

• Shared Interagency Leadership: The U.S. OHCU is built on shared leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of the Interior (DOI), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), facilitating collaboration among federal partners [72].
• Comprehensive Framework Development: Collaboratively developing a National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Enhance Public Health Preparedness [72].
• Formalized Coordination Mechanisms: Establishing structured coordination channels that transcend administrative boundaries and institutional silos [72].

Similarly, Guinea established the National One Health Platform (PNOH) under the supervision of the Ministry of Health, with the main objective of preventing, detecting, and responding to emerging and re-emerging diseases with pandemic potential through a multisectoral approach [5]. These institutional structures provide the foundational framework within which communication can occur.

Communication Platforms and Data Sharing

Barriers to data sharing—including privacy concerns, intellectual property rights, institutional barriers, and lack of trust—must be explicitly acknowledged and addressed through coordinated strategies [72]. Effective solutions include:

• Shared Platforms for Data Collection and Analysis: Creating accessible databases and knowledge-sharing platforms that enable real-time collaboration across sectors [72]. In the absence of formal platforms, even informal networks like WhatsApp group chats have proven useful in filling immediate communication gaps [72].
• Integrated Surveillance Systems: Developing coordinated, multi-sectoral surveillance systems that include human, animal, and environmental health data for monitoring disease spread and identifying patterns [72].
• Joint Simulation Exercises: Implementing exercises that test communication channels and response coordination, helping to identify gaps in current strategies and highlight the benefits of cooperation [72].

Education and Training Programs

Joint training programs help bridge disciplinary gaps by providing opportunities for professionals to learn about each other's expertise and develop common terminology. Specific approaches include:

• Interdisciplinary One Health Programs: Universities can develop programs that bring together students from human medicine, veterinary science, and environmental science, including joint courses, fieldwork, and collaborative research projects [72].
• Continued Professional Development: Workshops, seminars, and continuing education programs focusing on One Health issues help established professionals remain updated on latest research and practices across sectors [72].
• Community Engagement: Involving local populations in the design and implementation of One Health initiatives ensures programs are culturally appropriate and context-specific [72].

The Researcher's Toolkit

Research Reagent Solutions for Integrated Zoonoses Research

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Integrated Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses Studies

Research Tool Category	Specific Examples	Application in Zoonoses Research
Molecular Detection Assays	β-tubulin polymorphism analysis for Trichuris trichiura [75]; Geometric morphometrics for flea population differentiation [75]	Species identification, tracking transmission pathways, detecting genetic markers of resistance
Surveillance Materials	Sampling kits; Protective equipment; Data reporting tablets; Visual aid kits [5]	Standardized field sample collection, safe handling of infectious materials, real-time data reporting
Bioinformatics Resources	High-performance computing centers; Shared data analysis pipelines [71] [30]	Genomic analysis of pathogen relatedness, integration of multi-sectoral data, modeling transmission networks
Diagnostic Reagents	Serological assays; PCR primers/probes; Antigen detection tests [30] [75]	Pathogen detection in human, animal, and environmental samples; outbreak investigation
Banked Biological Samples	Archived human and animal sera; Tissue collections; Environmental samples [30]	Retrospective studies, validation of new diagnostics, understanding historical transmission patterns

Strategic Implementation Framework

Implementing effective communication bridges requires a systematic approach that addresses both technical and social dimensions of collaboration. The following strategic framework synthesizes evidence from multiple case studies and evaluations:

This framework emphasizes that successful communication bridging requires more than technological solutions; it demands institutional commitment, human capacity development, and continuous evaluation and adaptation based on performance metrics and emerging challenges.

Cross-sectoral communication breakdowns represent a critical vulnerability in global defenses against wildlife parasitic zoonoses. These breakdowns are quantifiable, structurally embedded, and have demonstrable consequences for disease surveillance, outbreak response, and research comprehensiveness. However, evidence-based solutions—including network analysis methodologies, structured evaluation frameworks, integrated governance models, shared communication platforms, and interdisciplinary training—provide actionable pathways for bridging these divides.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working within the One Health paradigm, addressing these communication gaps is not merely administrative but fundamentally scientific. The complex ecology of zoonotic diseases cannot be understood through disciplinary silos alone. By implementing the strategies and methodologies outlined in this technical guide, the scientific community can strengthen the collaborative frameworks necessary to confront the evolving challenge of wildlife parasitic zoonoses in an increasingly interconnected world.

The One Health approach, which recognizes the inextricable links between human, animal, and ecosystem health, is fundamental to addressing zoonotic diseases [1]. Despite this understanding, significant surveillance gaps persist in monitoring pathogens within wildlife, vectors, and environmental reservoirs, creating vulnerabilities for disease emergence and spillover. Current evidence indicates that zoonotic diseases account for approximately 60% of known human infectious diseases and up to 75% of emerging infectious diseases [4] [57] [76]. This technical review, framed within a broader thesis on One Health approaches to wildlife parasitic zoonoses research, examines the critical gaps in current surveillance systems, assesses methodological shortcomings, and proposes integrated strategies to strengthen global health security. The analysis is particularly relevant for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working at the intersection of disease ecology and public health.

The Current State of Zoonotic Disease Surveillance

Existing Global Surveillance Frameworks

Several international systems have been established to monitor zoonotic diseases. The Global Early Warning System (GLEWS), a joint initiative of the FAO, OIE, and WHO, represents a significant effort to pool information on animal diseases in high-risk areas [77]. This system functions to track diseases, share information, verify threats, conduct disease analysis, and support outbreak response. Similarly, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) maintains standards across 172 member countries and operates the World Animal Health Information System for data management [77]. The OIE's objectives include encouraging standardized surveillance, safeguarding world trade through health standards, and providing expertise in animal disease control.

The recently developed Global One Health Index for Zoonoses (GOHI-Zoonoses) provides a systematic approach to evaluate One Health performance in zoonosis prevention and control across 160 countries [78]. This tool assesses five key indicators, 16 subindicators, and 31 datasets to identify strengths and weaknesses in responding to zoonotic threats. Correlation analyses have revealed that GOHI-Zoonoses scores associate significantly with economic, sociodemographic, environmental, climatic, and zoological factors, with the Human Development Index being a particularly positive contributor to scores [78].

Quantitative Assessment of Surveillance Coverage

Table 1: Documented Surveillance Gaps in National Health Security Reports

Assessment Category	Number of Countries/Reports Analyzed	Key Finding on Wildlife/Environment Inclusion	Percentage with Documented Gaps
Performance of Veterinary Services (OIE)	32 countries	Variation in wildlife and environmental keyword frequency	83.2% (89/107) showed operational, coordination, scope, or capacity gaps
Joint External Evaluations (WHO)	91 countries	Limited evidence of functional wildlife health surveillance	57.9% (62/107) lacked evidence of functional wildlife health surveillance
National Action Plans for Health Security	12 countries	Inconsistent inclusion of environmental factors	Not quantified
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans	125 countries	Minimal inclusion of wildlife health or zoonotic disease	6.4% (8/125) included tangible wildlife health activities

A comprehensive review of major health security reports from 107 countries revealed systematic neglect of wildlife and environmental considerations [79]. The analysis demonstrated that more than half (57.9%) of reporting countries provided no evidence of functional wildlife health surveillance programs, while the vast majority (83.2%) indicated specific gaps in operations, coordination, scope, or capacity. This neglect is particularly concerning given that wildlife serves as reservoirs for numerous pathogens with pandemic potential, including Ebola, Marburg, and coronaviruses [79].

Critical Evidence Gaps in One Health Research

Geographical and Systemic Disparities

Recent evidence syntheses highlight substantial geographical disparities in zoonoses research. A systematic mapping of publications on zoonotic disease risks linked to agrifood systems found that 46% of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) had no published research on this topic, indicating an uneven distribution of research resources [76] [80]. This gap is particularly alarming given that LMICs often face the highest burden of zoonotic diseases and may harbor the conditions for novel pathogen emergence.

The same analysis revealed that among studied factors influencing zoonotic disease occurrence, research attention has been disproportionately focused on:

• Exposure to potential hosts or vector species (particularly livestock, featured in 53% of publications)
• Social and economic factors (47%)
• Physical and environmental factors (46%)
• Domesticated animal practices (38%) [76]

Several key areas remain underexplored, including evidence from certain food system contexts using One Health perspectives, wild animal hosts, and how exposure to wild animals may influence disease occurrence in humans and domesticated animals [76].

Functional Surveillance Gaps

Table 2: Research Focus Areas in Zoonotic Disease Studies

Research Category	Percentage of Publications	Key Gaps Identified
Exposure to potential hosts/vector species	53%	Limited research on wild animal hosts compared to livestock
Social and economic factors	47%	Inadequate understanding of socioeconomic drivers at human-wildlife interface
Physical and environmental factors	46%	Limited integration of climate change projections
Domesticated animal practices	38%	Insufficient coverage of wildlife-domestic animal interaction
Wildlife-specific factors	Not quantified	Major gap in surveillance systems and research focus

A significant functional gap exists in the translation of surveillance data to actionable insights for decision-makers. Researchers have noted that despite growing recognition of relationships between agricultural practices and zoonotic disease emergence, decision-makers lack evidence-based linkages connecting specific practices to disease risks [76] [80]. This disconnect between research and practical application hinders the development of targeted interventions and policies.

The surveillance of wildlife populations presents particular challenges. As noted in assessments of current systems, there are generally no mandates for reporting disease among wild animals, and die-offs in wild populations may easily be missed [77]. Even when incidents are noticed and reported, local officials may not recognize their significance or know appropriate response steps. The complexity of investigating wildlife disease outbreaks requires multidisciplinary expertise and faces the additional challenge of moving local information to regional, national, and global levels [77].

Methodological Approaches and Protocols

Assessment Methodologies for Surveillance Gaps

The research quantifying surveillance gaps employed systematic review methodologies of major health security reports, including WHO Joint External Evaluations, OIE Performance of Veterinary Services reports, and National Action Plans for Health Security [79]. The analytical approach included:

• Keyword frequency analysis to identify mentions of wildlife, environment, biodiversity, and climate factors
• Content analysis to assess stated coverage gaps, wildlife surveillance systems, and priority diseases
• Cross-comparison with National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans from 125 countries

For the assessment of zoonotic disease risks in agrifood systems, researchers conducted systematic mapping of five bibliographic databases and 17 organizational websites [76] [80]. From 49,038 unique publications, 7,839 were identified as potentially relevant using manual screening and machine learning. A 14% random sample (1,034 publications) underwent full-text screening, with 424 included in the final mapping.

Field Surveillance Protocols

Field studies at the human-wildlife interface, such as the research conducted in Hoima District, Uganda, employed cross-sectional mixed methods approaches [81]. The methodology included:

• Structured community surveys: 370 respondents interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires across eight villages neighboring forest fragments
• Focus group discussions: 10 FGDs consisting of 6-10 men or women to explore drivers of hunting and perceptions of zoonotic disease risks
• Content analysis for qualitative data and statistical analysis using STATA for quantitative data

This integrated approach allowed researchers to quantify high-risk behaviors while contextualizing them within local knowledge systems and socioeconomic drivers. The study revealed that 29% of respondents engaged in hunting of wildlife such as chimpanzees, with 55.3% citing animal protein acquisition as the primary motivation and 22.7% reporting cultural or medicinal uses [81].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Zoonotic Disease Surveillance

Reagent/Material	Primary Function	Application Context	Technical Considerations
Multiplex PCR assays	Simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens	Wildlife screening, vector surveillance	Requires validation for diverse species; cross-reactivity challenges
Next-generation sequencing platforms	Pathogen discovery, genomic characterization	Outbreak investigation, novel pathogen identification	Bioinformatics capacity often limiting in resource-limited settings
ELISA kits for wildlife serology	Antibody detection in various species	Sero-surveillance, exposure studies	Limited commercial availability for wildlife species
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)	Spatial analysis of disease distribution	Risk mapping, hotspot identification	Integration of environmental, animal, and human data
Remote sensing data	Environmental variable monitoring	Climate and land use change impacts	Requires calibration with ground surveillance data
Biobanking facilities	Specimen preservation for future study	Pathogen archives, retrospective studies	Ethical considerations for wildlife samples
Mobile data collection tools	Field data capture in remote areas	Community-based surveillance	Must be adaptable to low-infrastructure settings

Effective zoonotic disease surveillance requires specialized reagents and materials adapted to diverse field and laboratory conditions. The validation of diagnostic tools across multiple species presents particular challenges, as commercial assays are typically developed for human or domestic animal use [77]. Furthermore, biobanking of wildlife specimens raises ethical considerations regarding sample ownership and use, particularly when working with endangered species or in collaboration with indigenous communities.

Integrated Strategies for Surveillance Enhancement

Strengthening One Health Integration

Addressing critical surveillance gaps requires systematic multisectoral collaboration across human, animal, and environmental health sectors [57] [1]. The World Health Organization emphasizes that operationalizing One Health requires shared governance, communication, collaboration and coordination across sectors and disciplines [1]. Specific strategies include:

• Developing integrated indicators that capture transmission dynamics at the human-animal-environment interface
• Establishing joint outbreak response protocols between human and animal health sectors
• Creating data sharing agreements that facilitate timely information exchange while respecting confidentiality
• Implementing coordinated laboratory networks to enable rapid pathogen characterization

The Quadripartite collaboration (FAO, UNEP, WHO, WOAH) has developed a comprehensive One Health Joint Plan of Action to mainstream and operationalize One Health approaches at global, regional, and national levels [1]. This initiative aims to support countries in establishing national targets, mobilizing investment, and enabling collaboration across sectors.

Addressing Critical Capacity Gaps

Building effective wildlife health surveillance capacity requires addressing fundamental infrastructure and training gaps. Assessments indicate that strengthening wildlife health capacity should be emphasized in One Health efforts to monitor and mitigate known and novel disease risks [79]. Key requirements include:

• Developing wildlife-specific diagnostic capabilities in veterinary and public health laboratories
• Establishing reporting mechanisms for wildlife mortality events
• Training field personnel in wildlife disease investigation and sample collection
• Creating sustainable funding streams for wildlife health monitoring

The One Health High-Level Expert Panel has highlighted the need to improve infrastructure, legal frameworks, and resources for veterinarians and wildlife health professionals [1]. This includes supporting laboratory networks, building veterinary capacity, and engaging both public and private sector stakeholders.

Significant surveillance gaps in wildlife, vector, and environmental monitoring continue to hamper global capabilities for early detection and response to zoonotic disease threats. The inconsistent inclusion of wildlife and environmental health considerations in national health security priorities creates dangerous blind spots in pandemic prevention. Addressing these gaps requires substantive commitment to One Health implementation through strengthened multisectoral collaboration, integrated surveillance systems, and targeted capacity building in under-resourced regions. Future research should focus on developing standardized methodologies for wildlife surveillance, enhancing diagnostic capabilities for diverse species, and creating integrated analytics that bridge human, animal, and environmental data streams. By systematically addressing these surveillance gaps, the global health community can build more resilient systems for detecting and mitigating emerging health threats at the human-animal-environment interface.

This whitepaper outlines a structured framework for equitable resource allocation and capacity building within the context of a "One Health" approach to wildlife parasitic zoonoses research. The increasing global burden of zoonotic diseases, which account for 58% to 61% of all communicable diseases causing illness in humans, necessitates integrated strategies that balance the health of people, animals, and ecosystems [4] [1] [82]. This guide provides researchers and drug development professionals with quantitative methodologies, practical protocols, and a toolkit for prioritizing research initiatives and building sustainable research capacity. By embedding equity at the core of implementation science, we can accelerate the translation of research into effective interventions that address the full spectrum of disease control, from prevention to preparedness and response [83] [1].

The "One Health" approach is an integrated, unifying framework that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems [1]. It recognizes that the health of these domains are closely linked and interdependent. This is particularly critical for wildlife parasitic zoonoses, where pathogens circulate at the human-animal-environment interface. The emergence of pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 has underlined the urgent need to strengthen this approach, with a greater emphasis on environmental connections [1]. Effective management of these complex threats requires global cooperation, which in turn depends on equitable resource distribution to foster stability, trust, and sustainable solutions [83]. When resources are unevenly distributed, it creates disparities that can lead to resentment, social unrest, and a reluctance to cooperate across borders, ultimately undermining global health security.

Quantitative Frameworks for Equitable Prioritization

A critical first step in equitable resource allocation is the systematic prioritization of diseases and research avenues. This requires moving beyond subjective judgements to quantitative, transparent methods.

Conjoint Analysis for Disease Prioritization

Conjoint Analysis (CA) is a market research technique gaining traction in healthcare for eliciting preferences and prioritizing complex issues [4] [82]. It is particularly useful for zoonotic disease prioritization, as it treats a disease as a "product" described by a set of characteristics (criteria) and forces stakeholders to make trade-offs between them, revealing the true relative importance of each criterion [82].

• Experimental Protocol:
  • Criteria Identification: Use structured methods like the nominal group technique in focus groups to identify key criteria for prioritization. A study on zoonoses used 21 criteria, including incidence, severity, mortality, and economic impact [4] [82].
  • Define Criterion Levels: For each criterion, define a range of measurable levels (e.g., for "case fatality rate," levels could be <1%, 1-10%, 11-50%, >50%).
  • Survey Design: Develop a partial-profile choice-based survey. Participants are presented with multiple choice tasks, each showing several disease profiles with different combinations of criterion levels, and are asked to select which disease to prioritize.
  • Data Collection and Modeling: Recruit a wide range of health professionals (epidemiologists, public health practitioners, veterinarians, researchers). Use Hierarchical Bayes models to analyze the choice data and derive relative importance weights for each criterion and its levels [82].
  • Application and Ranking: Apply the resulting point-scoring system to a list of target diseases (e.g., 62 zoonoses) to generate a ranked priority list [82].

Metrics for Measuring Health Inequality

To evaluate and address inequity, researchers must be able to measure it. Several quantitative metrics are available, each with specific applications [84].

Table 1: Key Metrics for Health Inequality Measurement

Metric	Description	Application	Interpretation
Slope Index of Inequality (SII)	The slope of a regression line predicting a health variable (e.g., healthcare utilization) by socioeconomic rank [84].	Measures absolute inequality across an entire population distribution.	Represents the difference in utilization between the bottom and top of the socioeconomic scale.
Concentration Index	Derived from a concentration curve, which plots the cumulative share of a health variable against the cumulative population ranked by socioeconomic status [84].	Measures relative socioeconomic-related health inequality.	Ranges from -1 (pro-poor inequality) to +1 (pro-rich inequality); 0 represents perfect equality.
Gini Coefficient	Measures the degree of inequality in a distribution, derived from the Lorenz curve [84].	Summarizes univariate inequality (e.g., inequality in health outcomes alone).	Ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality).
Benefit Incidence Analysis (BIA)	Combines data on unit costs of health services with utilization data across socioeconomic groups [84].	Evaluates how government health expenditure is distributed across population subgroups.	Reveals whether public spending is progressive (benefiting the poor more) or regressive.

Advanced methods like Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (ECEA) and Distributional CEA (DCEA) can further help identify interventions that provide the best value for money while reducing health inequities [84]. These techniques incorporate "inequality aversion" parameters, allowing decision-makers to explicitly weight health benefits to the most disadvantaged groups more heavily [84].

Capacity Building for Equitable Implementation Science

Building human and intellectual capital is fundamental for generating new knowledge and narrowing the research-to-practice gap. Effective capacity building requires structured, mentored training programs [85].

A Model for Equity-Focused Training

The Institute for Implementation Science Scholars (IS-2) provides a proven framework for building capacity with an explicit equity focus [85].

• Program Structure: A two-year, mentored training program for early- and mid-career investigators applying implementation science (IS) to reduce chronic disease disparities.
• Core Elements:
  • Curriculum Development: A modified Delphi process with researchers and practice leaders was used to identify and integrate novel, equity-focused IS competencies into the core curriculum [85].
  • Structured Mentoring: Scholars are assigned faculty mentors for ongoing, evidence-informed career and research development, including virtual meetings and mock grant reviews [85].
  • Pilot Funding: Flexible funding ($1,000 per scholar) to support preliminary research activities [85].
  • Network Building: Facilitation of peer-to-peer and scholar-mentor collaborations through in-person institutes, webinars, and networking events [85].

This model demonstrated significant success, with scholars showing gains across 43 implementation science competencies, and the establishment of a vibrant collaborative network. It is notable that under-represented scholars (URS) had similar skill gains, though the study found they were less likely to hold network ties, highlighting an area for continued focus in program design [85].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers in wildlife parasitic zoonoses, a core set of reagents and materials is essential for field and laboratory work. The following table details key items and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses Research

Research Reagent / Material	Function / Application
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Accurate amplification of parasite genomic DNA for PCR-based diagnosis and genotyping from human, animal, and environmental samples.
Parasite-Specific Monoclonal Antibodies	Detection and quantification of parasitic antigens in clinical (serum) and environmental samples via ELISA and immunohistochemistry.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Library Prep Kits	Preparation of genetic libraries from low-biomass/diverse samples (e.g., wildlife feces, soil, water) for pathogen discovery and microbiome studies.
Field DNA/RNA Preservation Buffers	Stabilization of nucleic acids in remote field conditions prior to transport to central laboratories, critical for sample integrity.
Recombinant Parasite Antigens	Key reagents for developing highly specific and sensitive serological assays (e.g., ELISA, lateral flow) to detect host exposure.
Cell Culture Systems (e.g., primary mammalian, tick, or snail cells)	In vitro modeling of host-parasite interactions, drug screening, and study of parasite life cycle stages.
CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing Systems	Functional genomic studies to identify and validate essential genes in parasite pathogens, informing novel drug targets.
Matrix Standards for Mass Spectrometry	Identification and proteomic profiling of parasites and host responses in tissue samples (MALDI-TOF).

Integrated Workflow for Resource Allocation and Capacity Building

The following diagram visualizes the logical workflow for implementing the equitable resource allocation and capacity building strategies detailed in this whitepaper, specifically within a One Health research context.

Addressing the complex challenge of wildlife parasitic zoonoses demands a deliberate and systematic approach to equity in resource allocation and capacity building. By adopting quantitative methods like Conjoint Analysis for transparent prioritization and robust inequality metrics for evaluation, the global research community can ensure that limited resources are directed where they are most needed and effective. Coupling this with structured, equity-focused training programs, such as the IS-2 model, builds the necessary human capital to implement solutions. Integrating these strategies within the overarching framework of One Health, as visualized in the provided workflow, creates a resilient, collaborative, and equitable ecosystem for research and implementation. This is not merely an ethical imperative but a pragmatic necessity for achieving global health security and effectively mitigating the impacts of emerging parasitic threats [83] [1] [84].

Evidence and Efficacy: Validating One Health Strategies Through Case Studies and Outcomes

The One Health approach recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health and requires robust evaluation frameworks to assess intervention effectiveness. Evaluating One Health interventions presents unique methodological challenges due to the multi-sectoral, multi-level, and multi-stakeholder nature of implementation. Without standardized metrics and methodologies, comparing outcomes across interventions and geographic regions remains problematic, limiting evidence-based policy and practice. This technical guide synthesizes current evaluation frameworks, metrics, and methodologies to standardize the assessment of One Health interventions for wildlife parasitic zoonoses, providing researchers and drug development professionals with practical tools for comprehensive intervention assessment.

The critical need for standardized evaluation is underscored by recent assessments revealing significant gaps in One Health implementation. A systematic scoping review found that while 54.5% of One Health programs involved human and animal sectors only, no studies adequately incorporated the environment sector, highlighting a critical evaluation gap [34]. Furthermore, evaluation studies demonstrated that capacity development and multisectoral coordination were present in 96.1% of programs, but comprehensive monitoring and evaluation strategies were severely underdeveloped [34]. This guide addresses these gaps by providing integrated outcome measures that capture the complex interactions across all three One Health domains.

Core Evaluation Frameworks and Their Applications

The Global One Health Index (GOHI) and Local Adaptations

The Global One Health Index (GOHI) represents the first comprehensive assessment framework evaluating multiple dimensions of One Health across over 160 countries and territories [86]. This framework comprises three main categories: (1) External Drivers Index (EDI), assessing socio-economic, demographic and environmental factors; (2) Internal Drivers Index (IDI), evaluating health services and infrastructure; and (3) Core Drivers Index (CDI), measuring One Health implementation and practices [86]. These categories are further divided into 13 key indices, 57 indicators, and 170 sub-indicators, providing a detailed evaluation structure for identifying vulnerabilities and prioritizing interventions.

Recent research has demonstrated the adaptability of the GOHI framework to sub-national contexts. The Fukuoka One Health Index (FOHI) adaptation in Japan followed a rigorous three-phase methodology: (1) Indicator Selection through expert consultation and Delphi method; (2) Data Collection and Score Standardization using robust scaling methods; and (3) Weight Determination using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [86]. The resulting evaluation revealed a mean FOHI score of 52.27 (range: 41.01-63.71), with the lowest average score in Core Drivers Index (47.11) compared to Internal Drivers Index (59.17) and External Drivers (50.43) [86]. Municipalities performed strongest in zoonotic disease management (72.33) but weakest in One Health governance (6.36), demonstrating the framework's ability to identify specific implementation gaps [86].

Table: Fukuoka One Health Index (FOHI) Assessment Results

Index Category	Average Score	Strength Indicators	Weakness Indicators
Core Drivers Index (CDI)	47.11	Zoonotic disease management (72.33)	One Health governance (6.36)
Internal Drivers Index (IDI)	59.17	Health infrastructure	Laboratory capacity
External Drivers Index (EDI)	50.43	Environmental factors	Socio-economic determinants

One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) Theory of Change

The Quadripartite collaboration (FAO, UNEP, WHO, WOAH) developed the One Health Joint Plan of Action (OH JPA) Theory of Change framework, structured across three pathways and six action tracks to achieve "sustainable health and food systems, reduced global health threats and improved ecosystem management" [34]. The three pathways include: (1) Policy, legislation, advocacy and financing; (2) Organizational development, implementation and sectoral integration; and (3) Data, evidence and knowledge [34].

A systematic analysis of 54 One Health implementation studies revealed that 90.9% of programs incorporated at least one aspect of Pathway 1, 96.1% incorporated Pathway 2, but only 60% incorporated Pathway 3 [34]. This analysis demonstrates that capacity development and multisectoral coordination form the foundation of One Health implementation, while data, evidence, and knowledge systems remain underdeveloped, highlighting a critical area for methodological improvement in intervention evaluation.

Performance Evaluation in Resource-Limited Settings

In Guinea, a cross-sectional study of regional One Health platforms utilized a standardized evaluation tool developed by Africa CDC to assess performance across eight administrative regions [5]. The evaluation focused on seven key indicators: (1) Legislation; (2) Epidemic Detection and Documentation; (3) Preparedness; (4) Training of Actors; (5) Material Resources; (6) Funding; and (7) Coordination [5]. The study revealed an overall One Health performance score of 41%, indicating limited implementation at the national scale, with no region reaching the 60% performance threshold [5].

Table: One Health Platform Performance in Guinea by Indicator

Performance Indicator	Average Score	Highest Performing Region	Lowest Performing Region
Legislation	62%	Conakry (89%)	Labé (45%)
Epidemic Detection & Documentation	53%	Conakry (78%)	Kindia (35%)
Preparedness	48%	Boké (72%)	Faranah (31%)
Training of Actors	51%	N'zérékoré (75%)	Labé (32%)
Material Resources	9%	Conakry (21%)	Kindia (2%)
Funding	29%	Conakry (55%)	Labé (12%)
Coordination	57%	Conakry (82%)	Faranah (38%)

Indicator-level analysis revealed significant heterogeneity across regions, with Conakry demonstrating strong performance in legislation (89%), while all regions exhibited weak capacities in mobilizing material resources (9%) [5]. This evaluation approach provides a pragmatic methodology for identifying critical system gaps in resource-limited settings, particularly useful for prioritizing interventions in wildlife parasitic zoonoses research where resources are often constrained.

Standardized Metrics and Data Collection Methodologies

Wildlife Disease Data Standardization

Rapid and comprehensive data sharing is vital to the transparency and actionability of wildlife infectious disease research and surveillance. A recently proposed minimum data and metadata reporting standard for wildlife disease studies identifies 40 data fields (9 required) and 24 metadata fields (7 required) sufficient to standardize and document a dataset consisting of records disaggregated to the finest possible spatial, temporal, and taxonomic scale [87] [88]. This standard addresses critical gaps in current practice, where most studies only provide summary statistics for parasite prevalence across different sites, species, or time points, which cannot be disaggregated back to the host level [87].

The guiding philosophy of the data standard is that researchers should share their raw wildlife disease data in a format that data scientists refer to as "rectangular data" or "tidy data," where each row corresponds to a single measurement, specifically the outcome of a diagnostic test [87]. The three main categories of information include: (1) Sample data (Sample ID, Collection date, Latitude, Longitude); (2) Host animal data (Host identification, Organism sex, Life stage, Mass); and (3) Parasite data (Parasite taxonomic name, Test result, Test name) [87]. This standardized approach enables more robust meta-analyses and comparative studies essential for evaluating interventions across different ecological contexts.

Network Analysis for Zoonotic Interface Evaluation

Network analysis approaches provide powerful methodologies for understanding complex zoonotic interactions and evaluating intervention effectiveness. The concept of "zoonotic web" (akin to "food web") represents a network representation of zoonotic actors at human-animal-environment interfaces intended for use in One Health approaches [30]. This methodology was applied in Austria, where a systematic literature search compiled a dataset of naturally occurring zoonotic interactions spanning 1975-2022, creating a bipartite network transformed into a one-mode projection representing the network of zoonotic agent sharing among zoonotic sources [30].

The analysis revealed that within the projected unipartite source-source network of zoonotic agent sharing, the most influential zoonotic sources were human, cattle, chicken, and some meat products [30]. Analysis of the One Health 3-cliques (triangular sets of nodes representing human, animal, and environment) confirmed the increased probability of zoonotic spillover at human-cattle and human-food interfaces [30]. The study characterized six communities of zoonotic agent sharing, whose assembly patterns are likely driven by highly connected infectious agents in the zoonotic web, proximity to human, and anthropogenic activities [30]. This network methodology offers researchers a sophisticated approach for identifying critical intervention points in complex ecological systems.

Methodological Protocols for Intervention Assessment

Integrated One Health Assessment Protocol

Based on the successful implementation in Fukuoka, Japan, the following protocol provides a standardized methodology for evaluating One Health interventions targeting wildlife parasitic zoonoses:

Phase 1: Indicator Selection and Adaptation

• Conduct thorough review of GOHI 170 sub-indicators and local policy documents
• Apply selection criteria: municipal-level data availability, relevance/equivalence to framework, authoritative sources, completeness, timeliness, comparability
• Validate indicator selection through expert consultation using Delphi method to achieve consensus
• Finalize customized indicators specific to wildlife parasitic zoonoses context [86]

Phase 2: Data Collection and Standardization

• Collect data from authoritative national, regional, and local databases
• Implement the minimum data standard for wildlife disease research, including all 9 required data fields: Sample ID, Collection date, Latitude, Longitude, Host identification, Diagnostic test target, Test name, Test result, Test validity [87]
• Ensure inclusion of negative results and appropriate metadata for comparative analysis
• Standardize scores using robust scaling methods to enable cross-indicator comparison [86]

Phase 3: Weight Determination and Score Calculation

• Utilize Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process for weight determination of indicators
• Engage multidisciplinary expert panel representing human health, veterinary science, ecology, and environmental health
• Calculate composite scores using weighted aggregation method
• Conduct sensitivity analysis to assess robustness of weighting scheme [86]

Phase 4: Performance Analysis and Interpretation

• Compute descriptive statistics for overall and domain-specific scores
• Conduct Latent Class Analysis to identify distinct performance patterns across implementation sites
• Perform comparative analysis using radar charts to visualize performance disparities
• Contextualize quantitative findings with qualitative implementation data [86] [5]

Zoonotic Web Analysis Protocol

For understanding intervention impacts on complex ecological relationships, the following protocol adapts the zoonotic web methodology:

Data Compilation Phase

• Conduct systematic literature search across multiple databases using standardized search terms
• Include scientific articles, government reports, and thesis literature for comprehensive coverage
• Extract data on zoonotic agents, hosts, vectors, food, and environmental sources
• Create structured dataset with each row representing one investigated zoonotic agent and investigation results [30]

Network Construction Phase

• Create bipartite network linking zoonotic sources (hosts, vectors, environment, food) with zoonotic agents
• Transform to one-mode projection representing network of zoonotic agent sharing among sources
• Weight relationships between sources by number of zoonotic agents shared
• Calculate network centrality metrics to identify influential nodes and transmission pathways [30]

Community Analysis Phase

• Apply community detection algorithms to identify clusters of frequently shared zoonotic agents
• Analyze composition of communities to identify ecological and anthropogenic drivers
• Examine triangular sets of nodes (3-cliques) representing human, animal, and environment interfaces
• Quantify spillover risk at different interface types based on network connectivity [30]

Intervention Simulation Phase

• Model targeted interventions through selective node or edge removal
• Quantify impact on network connectivity and predicted spillover risk
• Identify optimal intervention points for maximal disruption of transmission pathways
• Validate model predictions with empirical outbreak data where available [30]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for One Health Intervention Evaluation

Category	Item	Specification/Standard	Application in Evaluation
Data Collection Tools	Standardized wildlife disease data collection form	40 data fields (9 required), 24 metadata fields (7 required) [87]	Ensures consistent, comparable data collection across studies and sites
Diagnostic Reagents	Pathogen detection kits	PCR, ELISA, or other standardized tests with documented sensitivity/specificity	Case detection and confirmation; must include positive and negative controls
Geospatial Materials	GPS devices	Minimum accuracy of 5 meters	Precise location data for spatial analysis of zoonotic distributions
Sample Collection	Biological sample collection kits	Swabs, containers, preservatives appropriate for pathogen survival	Standardized sample integrity across collection sites and personnel
Data Management	FAIR-compliant database system	PHAROS database, GBIF, or custom solutions with API access	Data integration, sharing, and re-use across research communities
Analysis Software	Network analysis packages	igraph, NetworkX, or specialized zoonotic web tools	Mapping complex interactions across human-animal-environment interfaces
Reference Materials	Standardized indicator frameworks	GOHI, OH JPA, or adapted local versions (e.g., FOHI)	Comparative assessment across temporal and spatial scales

Evaluating One Health interventions for wildlife parasitic zoonoses requires integrated, standardized outcome measures that capture the complex interactions across human, animal, and environmental health domains. The frameworks, metrics, and methodologies presented in this technical guide provide researchers and drug development professionals with robust tools for comprehensive intervention assessment. The Global One Health Index adaptation methodology offers a structured approach for local context customization, while the zoonotic web analysis enables understanding of complex ecological relationships that drive disease transmission.

Future development in One Health intervention evaluation should focus on enhancing the environmental health component, which remains underrepresented in current implementations [34]. Additionally, greater emphasis on standardized data collection and negative result reporting will enable more robust meta-analyses and systematic reviews [87] [88]. As evaluation methodologies mature, establishing clear linkages between One Health interventions and quantifiable outcomes across all three domains will be essential for justifying continued investment and policy support for integrated approaches to managing wildlife parasitic zoonoses.

The operationalization of these evaluation frameworks at local levels, as demonstrated in Fukuoka, Japan, and Guinea, provides promising models for contextually relevant assessment while maintaining global comparability [86] [5]. By adopting these standardized metrics and methodologies, the One Health research community can generate the compelling evidence base needed to advance the field and effectively address the complex challenge of wildlife parasitic zoonoses in an increasingly interconnected world.

Zoonotic diseases, which are transmitted between animals and humans, present complex challenges to global public health. This whitepaper provides a comparative analysis of three significant zoonoses—Rabies, Cystic Echinococcosis (CE), and Zoonotic Tuberculosis (TB)—within the context of the One Health framework. The One Health approach recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health and is critical for developing effective control strategies for these diseases [89] [90]. Each of these diseases has distinct transmission dynamics, epidemiological profiles, and control requirements, yet they all share the common feature of requiring coordinated cross-sectoral interventions. This analysis synthesizes current burden data, control methodologies, and research protocols to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working at the interface of human, animal, and environmental health.

Global Burden and Epidemiological Profiles

The global burden of these three zoonotic diseases varies significantly in terms of incidence, mortality, and geographical distribution. Understanding these epidemiological profiles is essential for prioritizing and targeting control interventions effectively.

Table 1: Comparative Global Burden of Zoonotic Diseases

Disease	Global Incidence (ASIR)	Global Mortality (ASMR)	Primary Reservoir	Key High-Burden Regions
Rabies	Not specified in results	~100% fatal after symptoms [91]	Domestic dogs (99% of human cases) [91]	Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Africa [91]
Cystic Echinococcosis (CE)	1.82 per 100,000 (2021) [92]	0.02 per 100,000 (2021) [92]	Dogs (definitive host), Sheep/Livestock (intermediate) [93]	Southern Latin America, Central Asia, East Asia [92]
Zoonotic Tuberculosis	Detection rates 0.77%-49% in dairy studies [90]	Contributes to overall TB burden (1.4M deaths, 2020) [90]	Cattle (primarily), Wildlife reservoirs [94]	Ethiopia, Mexico, Tanzania, India [90]

Table 2: Disparities in Disease Burden by Socio-Demographic Index (SDI)

Disease	Low-SDI Regions	High-SDI Regions	Temporal Trends
Rabies	Limited PEP access, higher fatalities [91]	Dog rabies free since 2007 (e.g., U.S.) [95]	Ongoing outbreaks in naive populations [91]
Cystic Echinococcosis	ASPR = 9.88 per 100,000 [92]	ASPR = 1.67 per 100,000 [92]	ASPR stable, ASMR declining (EAPC: -4.83%) [92]
Zoonotic Tuberculosis	Higher prevalence due to unpasteurized dairy consumption [90]	Rare due to pasteurization, veterinary controls [90]	Persists in endemic areas with limited veterinary infrastructure [90]

Disease-Specific Control Programs

Rabies Control

Rabies control exemplifies a successful One Health approach that integrates veterinary and human public health measures. The fundamental strategy involves breaking the transmission cycle from dogs to humans through coordinated interventions.

• Dog Vaccination: The cornerstone of rabies control is achieving ≥70% vaccination coverage in dog populations to establish herd immunity and interrupt transmission [91]. Current limitations include low coverage (e.g., 24% in Indonesia, 2022) and significant stray dog populations [91].

• Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP): For human exposure, PEP is nearly 100% effective if administered promptly and correctly. The protocol includes: (1) extensive wound washing with soap and water for at least 15 minutes; (2) a course of modern cell-culture rabies vaccines that meet WHO standards; and (3) infiltration of rabies immunoglobulin (RIG) or monoclonal antibodies into the wound for Category III exposures [91]. Limitations in PEP access and completion, particularly in remote areas, contribute to ongoing fatalities [91].

• Innovative Tools: The market is seeing advances including recombinant nanoparticle-based formulations, monoclonal antibody cocktails, and thermostable human rabies immune globulin [96]. Intradermal administration routes and single-dose cell-culture vaccines are improving accessibility [96].

Cystic Echinococcosis Control

CE control requires integrated approaches targeting the parasite's complex lifecycle between definitive hosts (dogs) and intermediate hosts (typically livestock).

• Veterinary Interventions: Regular deworming of dogs with praziquantel and livestock vaccination with EG95 vaccine are primary control measures [92]. These interventions reduce egg shedding from infected dogs and break the transmission cycle to intermediate hosts.

• Public Health Measures: Community education focuses on hygiene practices to prevent exposure to Echinococcus eggs from dog feces, particularly for children in endemic areas [93]. Safe slaughtering practices and proper offal disposal prevent dogs from accessing infected livestock tissues [92].

• Challenges: Control efforts face challenges from suboptimal medical conditions, inadequate prevention measures, and insufficient resources in endemic regions [93]. Despite various control strategies, CE continues to pose a serious public health threat in many regions [93].

Zoonotic Tuberculosis Control

Zoonotic TB control, primarily caused by Mycobacterium bovis, requires integrated approaches across human health, animal health, and food safety sectors.

• Food Safety Interventions: Pasteurization of milk is the most effective intervention to prevent transmission through dairy products [90]. Enforcement of food safety regulations and public campaigns against unpasteurized dairy consumption are critical, particularly in endemic regions.

• Veterinary Health Measures: Test-and-cull programs for infected cattle, movement controls, and regular bovine TB testing are essential veterinary components [90]. Strengthening veterinary infrastructure in low-resource settings is crucial for effective control.

• Diagnostic Challenges: Zoonotic TB detection faces significant heterogeneity (I² = 98.9%) due to inconsistent testing standards and study designs [90]. Molecular methods like PCR show higher sensitivity (up to 49%) compared to culture techniques (21%-35%) [90].

Experimental Protocols and Research Methodologies

Surveillance and Burden Assessment

Robust surveillance systems are fundamental for understanding disease distribution and burden. The following protocols represent standardized methodologies for zoonotic disease assessment.

Table 3: Core Surveillance Methodologies for Zoonotic Diseases

Methodology	Key Applications	Implementation Steps	Data Outputs
CDC Rabies Assessment Protocol [95]	Country-level rabies status classification	1. Review public data (WHO, WOAH, PAHO) 2. Evaluate surveillance robustness 3. Assess PEP availability 4. Classify country status	Lyssavirus-free, robust surveillance, control program status
GBD Database Analysis [93] [92]	CE burden estimation across 204 countries	1. Extract age-specific data 2. Calculate age-standardized rates (ASRs) 3. Compute EAPCs 4. Project future trends (ARIMA modeling)	Prevalence, incidence, mortality, DALYs, and projections
Zoonotic TB Meta-Analysis [90]	Prevalence estimation from dairy consumption	1. Systematic literature search (2000-2024) 2. Data extraction 3. Heterogeneity assessment (Cochran's Q, I²) 4. Pooled prevalence calculation (random/fixed effects)	Pooled detection rates, subgroup analyses, bias assessment

Laboratory Diagnostic Techniques

Accurate diagnosis is essential for clinical management, surveillance, and control of zoonotic diseases. The following workflows outline standard diagnostic approaches.

Diagram 1: Diagnostic Pathways for Zoonotic Diseases

One Health Implementation Assessment

Evaluating the implementation of One Health approaches in research requires systematic assessment of integration across domains.

Diagram 2: One Health Implementation in Zoonoses Research

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential research reagents and materials for investigating these zoonotic diseases, facilitating standardized research protocols across laboratories.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Zoonotic Disease Studies

Reagent/Material	Specific Application	Function in Research
RT-PCR Assays [91]	Rabies virus confirmation	Detection of viral RNA in saliva, skin, or brain samples for case confirmation and surveillance
Cell-Culture Rabies Vaccines [95] [96]	PEP evaluation and research	Gold-standard vaccines for immunogenicity studies and protection evaluation in research models
Monoclonal Antibody Cocktails [96]	Rabies research and treatment	Neutralizing antibodies for passive immunization research and therapeutic development
EG95 Recombinant Vaccine [93]	CE intervention studies	Protein-based vaccine for intermediate host immunization in transmission interruption studies
Praziquantel [92]	CE control research	Anthelmintic for deworming protocols in definitive hosts (dogs) for transmission reduction studies
Mycobacterium bovis RD-deletion Markers [90]	Zoonotic TB differentiation	Molecular markers to distinguish M. bovis from M. tuberculosis in diagnostic assay development
Selective Culture Media (L-J) [90]	Zoonotic TB isolation	Culture medium for M. bovis isolation from clinical samples with characteristic biochemical profiling
PCR Primers for Echinococcus spp. [93]	CE species identification	Genetic markers for species and strain differentiation in epidemiological studies and life cycle tracking
Rapid Immunochromatographic Tests [96]	Field-based diagnostics	Point-of-care detection of pathogens or antibodies for surveillance in resource-limited settings
ELISA Kits (IgG/IgM) [96]	Seroprevalence studies	Detection of host immune response to pathogens for exposure assessment and epidemiological studies

Discussion and Future Directions

The comparative analysis of rabies, CE, and zoonotic TB reveals critical insights for advancing One Health approaches to zoonotic disease control. While each disease has unique characteristics, common challenges and opportunities for integration emerge across all three.

Integration Gaps in One Health Implementation

Current research on zoonotic diseases demonstrates significant gaps in implementing truly integrated One Health approaches. A systematic review found that only 4.8% of studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife simultaneously integrated human, animal, and environmental domains in data collection, with just 29.5% integrating these domains in knowledge generation [89]. Environmental health is particularly underrepresented (34.3% of studies), while social science methodologies are used in only 19% of studies [89]. This fragmentation impedes comprehensive understanding of disease dynamics and limits the effectiveness of control strategies. Future research should prioritize transdisciplinary collaboration that equally weights all three One Health domains.

Innovations in Diagnostics and Control

Technological innovations are reshaping approaches to zoonotic disease control. For rabies, recombinant nanoparticle-based formulations and monoclonal antibody cocktails are advancing treatment options [96]. Intradermal vaccination routes and thermostable formulations are improving accessibility in resource-limited settings [96]. For CE, the declining mortality trends (EAPC: -4.83%) demonstrate progress in clinical management, though stable incidence highlights the need for improved transmission interruption [92]. For zoonotic TB, molecular methods like PCR are demonstrating superior sensitivity (up to 49%) compared to traditional culture techniques (21%-35%) [90], though standardization remains challenging, as evidenced by significant heterogeneity (I² = 98.9%) in detection studies.

Socioeconomic Dimensions and Equity Considerations

The burden of all three diseases demonstrates strong socioeconomic gradients. CE shows a strong negative correlation between Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and health indicators, with low-SDI regions bearing the highest burden (ASPR = 9.88 per 100,000 vs. 1.67 in high-SDI regions) [92]. Similarly, zoonotic TB disproportionately affects vulnerable populations with limited access to pasteurization facilities and veterinary services [90]. Rabies fatalities occur mainly among those who cannot immediately access effective PEP, with significant disparities in RIG availability between urban and rural areas [95] [91]. These equity considerations must be central to the design and implementation of control programs.

Strategic Priorities for One Health Implementation

Based on this comparative analysis, three strategic priorities emerge for advancing One Health approaches to these zoonoses:

• Strengthening Integrated Surveillance: Developing unified surveillance systems that simultaneously monitor human, animal, and environmental parameters would enhance early detection and response capabilities. The CDC's rabies assessment protocol provides a model for systematic data collection and classification that could be adapted for other zoonoses [95].

• Advancing Accessible Countermeasures: Innovations such as thermostable vaccines, single-dose regimens, and point-of-care diagnostics are critical for expanding access in resource-limited settings. The ongoing development of monoclonal antibody cocktails for rabies treatment exemplifies this direction [96].

• Promoting Cross-Sectoral Coordination: Effective zoonoses control requires breaking down silos between human health, animal health, and environmental sectors. Timor-Leste's establishment of a National Task Force on Rabies adopting a One Health approach demonstrates the potential of coordinated responses [91].

This comparative analysis underscores the critical importance of One Health approaches in addressing the complex challenges posed by rabies, cystic echinococcosis, and zoonotic tuberculosis. While these diseases differ in their transmission dynamics, clinical manifestations, and geographical distributions, they share common requirements for coordinated, cross-sectoral interventions. Significant progress has been made in reducing mortality for CE and developing innovative tools for rabies, but persistent disparities in disease burden between high- and low-SDI regions highlight the need for equitable implementation of control strategies. The continued emergence of zoonotic diseases, as demonstrated by Timor-Leste's recent rabies outbreak [91], reinforces the importance of robust, integrated surveillance and response systems. By advancing transdisciplinary research, strengthening health systems, and promoting equitable access to countermeasures, the global community can make significant progress toward reducing the burden of these neglected zoonotic diseases.

This whitepaper provides a technical guide for conducting economic impact assessments of preventive versus reactive approaches to wildlife parasitic zoonoses within a One Health framework. It details methodologies for quantitative data collection, analytical frameworks for cost-benefit calculation, and visualization tools to support decision-making by researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. The guidance emphasizes capturing cross-sectoral costs and benefits across human, animal, and environmental health domains to build a compelling economic case for proactive investment.

The One Health approach is defined as "an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems" by mobilizing "multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together" [97]. One Health Economics extends this approach by estimating costs and benefits that account for multiple sectors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of human, animal, and environment links than can be achieved with single-sector economic analyses alone [97]. For wildlife parasitic zoonoses, this is particularly critical because effective interventions often lie outside the human health sector, as transmission typically occurs from animals to humans rather than between humans [97].

Economic impacts from zoonotic diseases extend far beyond direct control costs. They include direct decreases in household income from lower livestock/product sales, consumption impacts from reduced food security, and increased household vulnerability where livestock serve as a risk-coping mechanism and affect household wealth [97]. Reactive approaches often focus solely on containment and treatment costs, while neglecting the substantial societal benefits of preventing outbreaks before they occur. This whitepaper establishes methodologies to comprehensively evaluate these economic relationships.

Conceptual Framework and Economic Principles

Defining Preventive and Reactive Approaches

Within the context of wildlife parasitic zoonoses, preventive approaches encompass interventions implemented before disease emergence or spread to reduce risk and potential impact. These include wildlife surveillance programs, ecosystem management to reduce transmission interfaces, veterinary interventions in reservoir species, and pre-emptive vaccination campaigns. In contrast, reactive approaches are implemented after disease detection in human or animal populations and include outbreak investigation, human treatment, emergency animal culls, and trade restriction management.

The economic distinction between these approaches fundamentally concerns the temporal allocation of resources and the magnitude of potential losses. Preventive strategies typically require earlier investment for uncertain future benefits, while reactive approaches often incur delayed but potentially far greater costs during crisis response. A One Health economics lens is essential because the costs of prevention may fall primarily on one sector (e.g., environmental or animal health) while benefits accrue predominantly to another (e.g., human health) [97].

Key Economic Concepts for Impact Assessment

• Full Societal Costs: Comprehensive evaluation must include both private and public costs across health, agriculture, and environment sectors, including costs to households [97]. Reactive approaches often incur significant negative externalities such as impacts on other producers, human health, and animal welfare [97].

• Time Value of Money: Future costs and benefits must be discounted to present values using the formula:

  PV = FV/(1+r)^n

  where PV is present value, FV is future value, r is the discount rate, and n is the number of periods [98]. This is particularly important for preventive approaches where costs are immediate but benefits accrue over years.

• Opportunity Costs: Resources allocated to either preventive or reactive approaches have alternative uses that must be considered in economic evaluation [99].

• Cross-Sectoral Cost-Benefit Allocation: Effective analysis requires mapping how costs and benefits distribute across different sectors and stakeholders, identifying potential co-benefits and trade-offs of interventions [97].

Methodological Approaches for Economic Assessment

Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is "the process of comparing the projected or estimated costs and benefits associated with a project decision to determine whether it makes sense from a business perspective" [99]. For One Health applications, this framework must be expanded to incorporate cross-sectoral impacts. The systematic process involves four key steps:

• Establish the Analysis Framework: Define goals, objectives, and metrics for success specific to the zoonotic disease context. Identify all relevant stakeholders across human health, animal health, environmental, and economic sectors [99]. Determine the appropriate timeframe for analysis, considering the ecology of the parasite and potential lag times between intervention and effect.

• Identify Costs and Benefits: Compile exhaustive lists of all potential costs and benefits categorized as follows [99]:

  • Direct costs/benefits: Immediately attributable to the intervention or outbreak
  • Indirect costs/benefits: Consequential effects on interconnected systems
  • Intangible costs/benefits: Difficult to measure but significant impacts
  • Opportunity costs: Value of forgone alternatives

• Assign Monetary Values: Where possible, assign appropriate dollar values to all identified costs and benefits. This requires careful consideration of valuation techniques for non-market goods such as ecosystem services and biodiversity preservation.

• Calculate and Compare Net Benefits: Tally total values and compute the cost-benefit ratio using the formula [98]:

  Cost-Benefit Ratio = Sum of Present Value Benefits / Sum of Present Value Costs

  A ratio greater than 1 indicates a positive return on investment.

Data Requirements and Collection Methodologies

Comprehensive economic assessment requires integration of diverse data types across the One Health spectrum. The following table outlines essential data categories and collection approaches:

Table 1: Data Requirements for One Health Economic Impact Assessment

Data Category	Preventive Approach Metrics	Reactive Approach Metrics	Collection Methods
Human Health	Averted morbidity/mortality; reduced treatment costs; productivity preservation	Disease incidence; hospitalization rates; treatment costs; productivity losses	Health facility records; household surveys; demographic surveillance
Animal Health	Wildlife surveillance costs; reservoir population management expenses; veterinary interventions	Domestic animal morbidity/mortality; livestock productivity losses; veterinary treatment costs	Veterinary reports; wildlife monitoring; livestock producer surveys
Environmental	Ecosystem management costs; habitat modification expenses; biodiversity preservation benefits	Environmental contamination control costs; ecosystem degradation losses	Remote sensing; ecological field studies; environmental quality monitoring
Economic & Trade	Program administration costs; international collaboration expenses	Trade restrictions impacts; market disruptions; response program implementation costs	Economic statistics; trade records; market analyses; stakeholder interviews

Analytical Techniques and Modelling Approaches

For complex zoonotic systems with limited historical data, several modelling approaches can be employed:

• Stochastic Modelling: Incorporates probability distributions to account for uncertainty in outbreak frequency, severity, and intervention effectiveness.
• Transmission Dynamic Models: Integrate ecological parameters of parasite life cycles with economic variables to project cross-sectoral impacts.
• Sensitivity Analysis: Systematically varies key parameters (e.g., discount rate, outbreak probability) to test robustness of conclusions.
• Scenario Planning: Develops multiple plausible future scenarios to evaluate intervention performance under different conditions.

Quantitative Assessment and Data Presentation

Cost-Benefit Comparison Framework

The economic comparison between preventive and reactive approaches requires systematic quantification of all relevant cost and benefit categories. The following tables provide templates for this assessment, with illustrative examples from literature.

Table 2: Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for Preventive Approaches

Cost/Benefit Category	Human Health Sector	Animal Health Sector	Environmental Sector	Economic Sector
Direct Costs	Vaccination programs; prophylactic treatment; public health education	Wildlife surveillance; reservoir host management; domestic animal vaccination	Ecosystem monitoring; habitat modification	Program administration; international collaboration
Indirect Costs	Training healthcare workers; surveillance system maintenance	Research and development; diagnostic capacity building	Protected area management; biodiversity conservation	Economic incentives for compliance; public awareness campaigns
Direct Benefits	Averted treatment costs; reduced morbidity and mortality	Reduced veterinary costs; maintained livestock productivity	Preserved ecosystem services; maintained biodiversity	Sustained trade; tourism revenue; market stability
Indirect Benefits	Increased productivity; reduced caregiver burden	Food security; sustained livelihoods	Climate resilience; water quality protection	Avoided emergency response costs; economic resilience

Table 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for Reactive Approaches

Cost/Benefit Category	Human Health Sector	Animal Health Sector	Environmental Sector	Economic Sector
Direct Costs	Outbreak investigation; case management; emergency response	Animal testing; culling; quarantine implementation	Environmental decontamination; remediation	Trade restrictions; market losses; compensation payments
Indirect Costs	Long-term disability care; chronic health conditions	Repopulation programs; breeding stock loss	Ecosystem restoration; species reintroduction	Economic stimulus requirements; business failures
Direct Benefits	Disease containment; reduced further transmission	Outbreak control; reduced further spread	Contamination control; reduced further degradation	Eventually restored trade; economic recovery
Indirect Benefits	Immune population development; system strengthening	Improved biosecurity awareness; system strengthening	Enhanced regulatory frameworks; monitoring improvements	Lessons learned for future preparedness

Case Study Data and Comparative Analysis

Empirical evidence demonstrates the economic advantage of preventive approaches. The 2010 Rift Valley Fever outbreak in South Africa resulted in production losses of approximately R5.4 million among surveyed farmers, with district-level losses ranging between R625,444 and R51.7 million in the Eastern Cape, Free State and Northern Cape provinces [97]. These were conservative estimates accounting only for livestock production, excluding human health costs and broader economic impacts.

A foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in South Africa in 2022 resulted in a 12% decrease in beef exports and a 21% decrease in wool exports due to temporary closure of various export markets [97]. Such trade impacts often far exceed direct disease management costs but are frequently overlooked in single-sector analyses.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for One Health Zoonoses Research

Reagent/Material	Technical Function	Application in Economic Assessment
Species-Specific Diagnostic Kits	Serological and molecular detection of parasitic infections in wildlife reservoirs	Quantify disease prevalence in animal populations for risk assessment and surveillance cost estimation
Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling Tools	Detection of parasite material in environmental samples (water, soil)	Monitor environmental contamination and evaluate intervention effectiveness in ecosystem management
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)	Spatial analysis of disease distribution and ecological factors	Identify high-risk areas for targeted interventions and optimize resource allocation
Multi-Host Transmission Models	Mathematical modeling of parasite flow between wildlife, domestic animals, and humans	Predict outbreak dynamics and magnitude for cost projections of reactive scenarios
Economic Input-Output Models	Tracing economic interdependencies across sectors	Quantify ripple effects of disease outbreaks throughout the economy
Stochastic Simulation Platforms	Incorporating uncertainty into outcome projections	Model probability distributions of costs and benefits for robust economic evaluation

Implementation Protocols for Economic Assessment

Step-by-Step Assessment Protocol

• Problem Scoping and Stakeholder Identification

  • Define the specific parasitic zoonosis and geographical scope
  • Map all relevant stakeholders across human health, animal health, environmental, and economic sectors
  • Establish governance structure for the assessment process

• Intervention Definition and Characterization

  • Clearly specify preventive interventions to be evaluated (e.g., surveillance protocols, vaccination strategies)
  • Define reactive approach components for comparison (e.g., outbreak response protocols)
  • Detail implementation parameters for each approach

• Epidemiological and Ecological Parameter Estimation

  • Collect baseline data on disease incidence/prevalence in human and animal populations
  • Document parasite life cycle characteristics and environmental persistence
  • Estimate intervention effectiveness based on literature or pilot studies

• Cost Data Collection and Validation

  • Identify all cost components for each intervention approach
  • Collect primary cost data or extract from published literature
  • Validate cost assumptions with sectoral experts

• Benefit Estimation and Valuation

  • Quantify avoided losses across all sectors for preventive approaches
  • Estimate negative outcomes for reactive scenarios
  • Apply appropriate valuation techniques to monetize benefits

• Model Building and Analysis

  • Integrate epidemiological, ecological, and economic parameters into analytical framework
  • Calculate present values of costs and benefits using appropriate discount rates
  • Compute cost-benefit ratios, net present values, and other decision metrics

• Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis

  • Identify key parameters with substantial uncertainty
  • Perform sensitivity analyses on critical assumptions
  • Conduct scenario analyses for different outbreak probabilities and severities

• Result Interpretation and Recommendation Development

  • Synthesize findings across sectors and stakeholder perspectives
  • Identify distributional impacts and potential trade-offs
  • Develop implementation recommendations with consideration of feasibility and equity

The economic evidence consistently demonstrates the superiority of preventive approaches for managing wildlife parasitic zoonoses within a One Health framework. However, implementation requires addressing several practical challenges:

• Cross-Sectoral Financing Mechanisms: Traditional funding streams often remain siloed within single sectors. Innovative financing approaches are needed to capture the full societal value of prevention.
• Integrated Surveillance Systems: Robust data collection across human, animal, and environmental domains is essential for accurate risk assessment and economic evaluation.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Effective prevention requires collaboration across diverse sectors and disciplines, with clear communication of economic benefits to decision-makers.
• Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks: Continuous economic assessment should be integrated into program implementation to validate assumptions and optimize resource allocation.

The methodology outlined in this whitepaper provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with the technical tools to build a compelling economic case for preventive investment, ultimately contributing to more sustainable and resilient health systems through the One Health approach.

Nipah virus (NiV) represents a significant zoonotic threat with case fatality rates ranging from 40% to 75%, highlighting the critical importance of effective outbreak control strategies [100] [101]. This technical analysis examines documented failures in risk communication during NiV outbreaks and identifies the transition to successful, evidence-based interventions. Evidence from Bangladesh demonstrates that initial one-way communication approaches that disregarded local cultural contexts were largely ineffective, leading to community resistance and continued high-risk behaviors [102]. Subsequent implementation of culture-centered communication strategies that incorporated local beliefs and practices resulted in significantly improved acceptance of prevention messages [102]. The integration of these communication principles within a One Health framework—addressing the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health—provides an essential paradigm for managing NiV and other emerging zoonotic threats [89] [2].

Nipah virus is a paramyxovirus of the genus Henipavirus, first identified during outbreaks in Malaysia and Singapore in 1998-1999 [100] [103]. As a biosafety level-4 (BSL-4) pathogen, NiV requires the highest level of containment, reflecting its significant public health risk [101]. The virus circulates naturally in fruit bats of the Pteropus genus, which act as asymptomatic reservoir hosts, creating persistent zoonotic potential across South and Southeast Asia [101] [103].

The One Health approach recognizes that optimal health outcomes depend on the interconnected health of people, animals, and the shared environment [2]. This framework is particularly relevant to NiV management, as outbreaks often result from complex interactions between wildlife reservoirs, human behavioral practices, and environmental changes such as deforestation and altered land use [89] [2]. Despite its classification as a WHO priority pathogen with epidemic potential, NiV has received comparatively limited bioethical and communication research attention, creating critical gaps in outbreak response capabilities [100].

Documented Communication Failures: Case Analysis

Initial Outbreak Response and Community Resistance

During a 2010 NiV outbreak in Faridpur District, Bangladesh, initial risk communication efforts by health authorities failed to achieve community cooperation [102]. Traditional communication methods included broadcast announcements via loudspeakers and household visits advising residents to stop consuming raw date palm sap, a known transmission route for the virus [102]. Despite these efforts, community residents continued high-risk behaviors, including raw sap consumption and maintaining practices that facilitated human-to-human transmission during caregiving [102].

Table: Initial Communication Failures in Nipah Virus Outbreaks

Failure Aspect	Traditional Approach	Community Response
Message Content	One-way recommendation to stop raw sap consumption	Rejection of message due to lack of causal explanation
Communication Channel	Loudspeakers, household visits	Perceived as authoritative without engagement
Cultural Context	Disregarded local beliefs and practices	Reinforcement of traditional explanations and resistance to biomedical advice
Trust Level	Low trust in public healthcare system	Suspicion of health authorities and hospital workers

Root Causes of Communication Breakdown

Analysis revealed several fundamental flaws in the initial communication strategy:

• Supernatural Explanations: Community members predominantly attributed the outbreak to supernatural forces, including "punishment from Allah" or other metaphysical causes, rather than viral transmission [102]. The lack of effective treatment for NiV-infected patients reinforced these non-biomedical explanations.

• Incomplete Messaging: Initial prevention messages failed to explain how bats transmitted the virus or provide visual evidence of the contamination process [102]. This created a critical knowledge gap that undermined message credibility.

• Cultural Norms Conflict: Public health recommendations to avoid close contact with infected patients directly contradicted strong cultural obligations for family members to provide hands-on care during illness [100] [102]. Similarly, advice against raw sap consumption failed to acknowledge its significance as a traditional delicacy with cultural importance [100].

• Biomedical Distrust: High case fatality rates and ineffective medical treatment eroded trust in the healthcare system, with community members becoming suspicious of hospital workers and biomedical explanations [102].

Successful Intervention Strategies and Methodologies

Culture-Centered Communication Approach

Field anthropologists implemented a redesigned communication strategy based on anthropological methods and culturally-centered engagement [102]. This approach involved two systematic phases:

Phase 1: Ethnographic Investigation

• Conducted 10 informal discussions with community residents to understand disease perceptions
• Performed key informant interviews with religious leaders and corpse handlers
• Completed 8 in-depth interviews with family caregivers of NiV cases
• Conducted 4 group discussions to cross-verify findings across participant types
• Established strong rapport with residents through respectful engagement and active listening

Phase 2: Interactive Message Development

• Created visual evidence using photographs demonstrating bat contamination of date palm sap
• Developed lay language explanations of NiV transmission pathways
• Implemented interactive community meetings allowing dialogue and questions
• Acknowledged cultural values while providing biomedical information
• Presented specific behavioral recommendations with clear rationales

Quantitative Outcomes of Successful Interventions

Table: Effectiveness and Cost Analysis of Nipah Prevention Strategies

Intervention Approach	Implementation Cost	Reach Scale	Key Outcomes	Cost for 30-District Scale-Up
"No Raw Sap" Approach	$30,000	342 villages	Increased knowledge of NiV transmission; reduced raw sap consumption	~$2.6 million
"Only Safe Sap" Approach (using barriers)	$55,000	381 villages	Safe sap consumption option; maintained cultural practice with reduced risk	~$3.5 million
TV Public Service Announcements Only	Low cost component	Broad regional coverage	Effective awareness building with lower penetration	~$26,000
Poster-Based Campaign	Moderate cost component	Village-level penetration	Supplemental reinforcement of key messages	~$96,000

Experimental Protocol for Culture-Centered Communication

For researchers implementing similar interventions, the following methodological protocol provides a framework for effective communication:

Community Engagement Protocol

• Rapport Building Phase (3-5 days)
  • Initiate unstructured conversations with community members
  • Identify and respectfully engage with formal and informal community leaders
  • Express genuine interest in local perspectives without immediate agenda

• Qualitative Data Collection (5-7 days)

  • Conduct semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholder groups
  • Use open-ended questions to explore illness explanations and care-seeking behaviors
  • Employ purposive sampling to ensure representation across gender, age, and social roles
  • Document observational data on daily practices and environmental factors

• Message Co-Development (2-3 days)

  • Present preliminary findings to community representatives for validation
  • Collaboratively identify culturally appropriate message framing
  • Develop visual aids that resonate with local experiences and knowledge systems
  • Incorporate local metaphors and analogies to explain biomedical concepts

• Interactive Dissemination (Ongoing during outbreak)

  • Conduct community meetings in accessible locations at convenient times
  • Utilize two-way dialogue rather than one-way instruction
  • Employ visual evidence that demonstrates transmission pathways concretely
  • Train trusted local representatives as communication facilitators

The One Health Framework in Nipah Virus Management

Integrated Domain Approach

Effective NiV management requires simultaneous attention to multiple interconnected domains:

Human Health Domain

• Develop culturally appropriate risk communication strategies
• Implement healthcare worker training on infection control
• Establish surveillance systems for early outbreak detection
• Address structural vulnerabilities that increase exposure risk [100]

Animal Health Domain

• Monitor NiV circulation in bat populations
• Investigate potential intermediate hosts
• Understand seasonal patterns of viral shedding
• Study bat ecology and movement in relation to human settlements

Environmental Health Domain

• Identify environmental drivers of spillover events
• Monitor land use changes and deforestation impacts
• Assess climate change effects on bat habitat and behavior
• Evaluate agricultural practices that increase human-bat contact

Current Research Gaps in One Health Implementation

A systematic review of zoonotic risk studies found limited integration of One Health principles [89]:

• Only 4.8% of studies simultaneously integrated human, animal, and environmental domains in data collection
• Just 29.5% integrated all three domains in knowledge generation
• Environmental health remained significantly underrepresented compared to human and animal health
• Social science methodologies were incorporated in only 19% of studies
• Non-academic stakeholder participation was limited to 36.2% of studies [89]

These findings highlight critical disciplinary siloes that must be addressed through more transdisciplinary research approaches and participatory methodologies.

Visualization of an Integrated One Health Communication Strategy

The following diagram illustrates the integrated framework for effective Nipah virus risk communication within a One Health context:

Research Tools and Reagent Solutions for Nipah Virus Studies

Table: Essential Research Resources for Nipah Virus Investigations

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Research Application	Technical Specifications
Viral Detection	qRT-PCR assays	Diagnostic confirmation of NiV infection	Targets NiV RNA; used during Kerala outbreak with 23 confirmed cases [101]
Computational Screening	Molecular docking simulations	Drug repurposing against Ephrin-B2 receptor	Screened 4,344 FDA-approved drugs; identified Guamecycline and Ergotamine as candidates [104]
Animal Models	African green monkeys, Golden hamsters	Pathogenesis and therapeutic testing	African green monkeys closely mimic human respiratory and neurological symptoms [101]
Serological Assays	ELISA-based antibody detection	Serosurveillance and exposure studies	Multiple formats developed for different host species [103]
Vaccine Platform	ChAdOx1 viral vector	Vaccine development	Same platform as AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine; 100,000-dose reserve established [105]
Behavioral Research	Structured surveys, Interview guides	Intervention effectiveness measurement	Validated instruments for knowledge, attitudes, and practice assessment [102] [106]

The documented failures and subsequent successes in NiV outbreak communication provide critical lessons for managing emerging zoonotic diseases. The transition from ineffective one-way messaging to culturally engaged dialogue demonstrates the fundamental importance of community trust and participatory approaches. Future research must address several priority areas:

First, operationalizing the One Health framework requires genuine transdisciplinary collaboration beyond current siloes, particularly through greater inclusion of social sciences and environmental health expertise [89]. Second, therapeutic development must advance through both novel compound discovery and strategic repurposing of existing drugs [104]. The establishment of a 100,000-dose vaccine reserve represents significant progress, though alternative licensure pathways will be necessary given the challenges of conducting large-scale efficacy trials for a low-incidence, high-fatality pathogen [105].

Finally, sustained community engagement between outbreaks is essential for building the trust necessary for effective emergency response. Integrating these complementary strategies within a comprehensive One Health framework offers the most promising approach for reducing the significant global health threat posed by Nipah virus and other emerging zoonoses.

The One Health (OH) approach, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health, is increasingly recognized as essential for addressing complex health challenges, particularly wildlife parasitic zoonoses. These diseases, transmitted naturally between wildlife and humans, present unique challenges due to their complex ecology and the involvement of wildlife reservoirs. However, a significant research gap exists in the systematic validation of OH program effectiveness. A comprehensive literature review revealed that despite the proliferation of OH initiatives, standardized evaluations are generally lacking. Of 1,839 unique OH papers identified, only seven (less than 1%) reported quantitative outcomes, and these assessments did not follow a shared methodology [107]. This absence of a standardized validation framework hinders the demonstration of OH value, comparison across programs, and ultimately, the wider adoption of the approach among stakeholders and policymakers [107].

For researchers and drug development professionals focusing on wildlife parasitic zoonoses, robust validation frameworks are not merely academic exercises; they are critical tools for identifying intervention points, allocating resources efficiently, and demonstrating the impact of integrated interventions. This guide provides a technical roadmap for developing and implementing such frameworks, with specific application to parasitic zoonosis research.

Theoretical Foundations of One Health Evaluation

Evaluating One Health initiatives requires moving beyond siloed metrics to integrated frameworks that capture interactions and outcomes across the human-animal-environment interface. The social-ecological systems (SES) framework is particularly valuable for this purpose, as it emphasizes the interactions between actors and ecological systems mediated by governing arrangements [108]. In the context of zoonoses, SES allows for the identification of different scales (international, national, local), sectors (human health, animal health, agriculture, environment), and disciplines that form the micro and macro elements of disease transmission and mitigation systems [108].

Complementing this, the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework provides a structured guideline for policy analysis. It encourages input from multiple disciplines and sectors in policy design to understand the use of information and incentives for policy adoption, and to assess how policies fit a particular context [108]. This is especially relevant for parasitic zoonoses management, where "rules-in-use" – the formal and informal rules that affect behavior – can significantly impact the success of control programs. For example, research on cysticercosis control in Peru found that hierarchical norms and unclear rules for zoonosis management between animal and environmental systems were significant barriers to effective multisectoral work [108].

Table 1: Key Theoretical Frameworks for One Health Validation

Framework	Core Principle	Application to Wildlife Parasitic Zoonoses
Social-Ecological Systems (SES)	Views systems as complex, integrated entities where social and ecological components interact.	Models the interplay between wildlife habitats, human land use, parasite life cycles, and public health outcomes.
Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)	Focuses on the rules, norms, and strategies that guide decision-making within organizations.	Analyzes policy barriers and enablers for multisectoral collaboration in zoonosis control.
One Health Systems Approach	Integrates human, animal, and environmental health through a holistic, multi-disciplinary lens.	Provides the overarching structure for designing surveillance, intervention, and evaluation strategies.

Core Components of a One Health Validation Framework

A comprehensive validation framework for OH programs must encompass a suite of standardized indicators that capture inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts across the three domains. Based on empirical assessments and literature, these can be categorized into several core components.

Performance Domains and Indicators

A cross-sectional study of OH platforms in Guinea, which evaluated performance across eight administrative regions, utilized a structured set of indicators that provide a practical model for assessment [5]. The overall OH performance score in Guinea was 41%, indicating a limited level of implementation, with no region reaching the 60% performance threshold [5]. This highlights the critical need for such metrics to identify weaknesses.

Table 2: Core Performance Indicators for One Health Platforms [5]

Component	Description	Example Metrics
Coordination (CID)	Existence of formal intersectoral mechanisms for consultation, planning, and monitoring.	Presence of a multisectoral technical coordination committee; frequency of meetings.
Legislation (LID)	Existence of regulatory texts or manuals defining mechanisms for integrated disease surveillance.	Adoption of national OH policy; formalized data-sharing agreements between sectors.
Epidemic Detection & Documentation (EDEIPD)	Presence of documentation and early warning mechanisms for epidemic outbreaks.	Number of joint outbreak investigations; time from detection to alert.
Preparedness & Response (PREID)	Existence of mechanisms for epidemic preparedness and response.	Presence of a joint response plan; simulation exercises conducted.
Training of Actors (FPID)	Existence of training programs for personnel involved in OH platform activities.	Number of staff trained in OH principles; proportion of sectors represented.
Material Resources (RMID)	Availability of essential equipment for surveillance and response.	Availability of computers, vehicles, sampling kits, and diagnostic tools.
Funding (FID)	Presence of a dedicated budget line for the OH platform.	Consistency of funding; diversity of funding sources.

The evaluation in Guinea revealed significant heterogeneity across regions. For instance, while the Conakry region demonstrated strong performance in legislation (89%), all regions exhibited weak capacities in the mobilization of material resources (9%), highlighting a major cross-cutting challenge [5]. This granular analysis is vital for targeting investments and support.

Quantitative Outcome Metrics

Beyond structural indicators, validating effectiveness requires capturing quantitative outcome metrics. These should include data from economic, epidemiological, and social assessments [107].

• Epidemiological Outcomes: These range from intermediate parameters (e.g., number of wildlife or environmental samples tested) to outcome parameters (e.g., changes in vector prevalence, human exposure incidence, or Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) averted). For example, a rabies control program in India achieved a 30% reduction in reported animal bite cases, while a tsetse control program in Chad reduced vector prevalence by 80% [107].
• Economic Outcomes: Cost is a critical metric, defined both as direct monetary expenditures for control activities (e.g., surveillance, vaccination) and indirect losses (e.g., loss of income). Cost-effectiveness analysis, such as the cost per DALY averted, is a powerful tool for comparison. One analysis of brucellosis control showed a livestock vaccination program could be cost-effective at US$19.1 per DALY averted [107].
• Social Outcomes: Social acceptance scores and animal welfare scores are increasingly recognized as important metrics for assessing the broader impact of interventions [107].

Diagram 1: OH Validation Workflow

Methodological Protocols for Validation

Study Design and Data Collection

The OH approach necessitates mixed-methodologies and innovative study designs. Research should combine qualitative and quantitative data—including human health surveys, environmental samples, animal behavior observations, and policy analyses [109].

• Collaborator Identification: Building a multi-disciplinary team is crucial. For wildlife parasitic zoonoses, this team should extend beyond traditional infectious disease experts to include, for example, epidemiologists, veterinarians, ecologists, wildlife biologists, geospatial scientists, parasitologists, and social scientists [109]. Early involvement of community members with on-the-ground experience (e.g., farmers, hunters, park rangers) can significantly enhance data collection and contextual understanding [109].
• Study Design Selection: The overall study design may be a combination of approaches. A project might combine a retrospective ecological evaluation of disease incidence in relation to land-use patterns with a prospective natural experiment to assess changes in disease trends following a conservation intervention [109]. Such integrated designs are well-suited to capture the complexity of systems in which parasitic zoonoses circulate.
• Power and Sample Size: Given the complexity and often observational nature of OH studies, researchers should conduct preliminary power and sample size computations to ensure the design is sufficient to address the primary research questions. Interim power analyses can also be conducted to refine data collection plans based on emerging trends [109].

Data may come from existing databases (e.g., government health repositories, agricultural records, ecological datasets) or from new, primary data collection efforts [109]. Geo-coded data, such as the Gridded Livestock of the World database, are particularly valuable for spatial analyses.

Due to the multi-source and mixed-methodology nature of OH data, analytical methods must accommodate complex data structures and relationships.

• Conjoint Analysis (CA): This market research technique is a novel quantitative approach for prioritizing zoonotic diseases. It forces stakeholders to make trade-offs between multiple disease characteristics (e.g., severity, transmissibility, economic impact), revealing the true relative importance of each criterion and eliminating potential biases associated with disease names. This method has been successfully used with health professionals in North America to develop a point-scoring system for zoonosis prioritization [4].
• Log-Linear Models: These models are useful for examining three or more variables and their inter-dependencies beyond simple independent-dependent variable relationships. They permit more than one outcome, which is especially useful for the complex questions addressed through OH [109].
• Other Multivariate Methods: Techniques such as structural equation modeling, multi-level modeling, and principal component analysis are also appropriate for analyzing complex OH data, depending on the research context [109].

Diagram 2: OH Data Integration

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing a OH validation framework, particularly for field-based research on parasitic zoonoses, requires a suite of essential materials and reagents. The following table details key components.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for OH Zoonoses Research

Item	Function/Application	Technical Specification Notes
Multisectoral Data Sharing Protocols	Formal agreements enabling integration of human, animal, and environmental data.	Must address data privacy, ownership, and standardization. Critical for coordination.
Standardized Diagnostic Assays	Detect and confirm parasitic infections across host species (human, wildlife, domestic animals).	Requires validation for multiple species. CRISPR-based and multiplex serological assays are advancing.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) Sampling Kits	Collect and preserve water, soil, or fecal samples from wildlife habitats for pathogen detection.	Allows for non-invasive surveillance of parasite presence and distribution in the environment.
Geographic Information System (GIS) Software	Map and analyze spatial-temporal patterns of disease risk, integrating ecological and human variables.	Essential for identifying environmental drivers and high-risk hotspots for intervention.
Structured Interview Guides	Conduct qualitative assessments with communities and stakeholders on knowledge, attitudes, and practices.	Informs social acceptance metrics and identifies potential barriers to intervention adoption.
One Health Performance Assessment Tool	Systematically score OH platform functionality (e.g., Africa CDC tool).	Evaluates core components like coordination, legislation, and resources with a standardized metric [5].

The development and implementation of standardized validation frameworks are paramount for advancing the science of One Health and effectively managing wildlife parasitic zoonoses. By adopting the structured indicators, methodological protocols, and analytical techniques outlined in this guide, researchers and drug development professionals can generate robust, comparable evidence of what works, for whom, and under what conditions. This evidence base is critical for optimizing resource allocation, guiding policy decisions, and ultimately demonstrating the tangible value of integrated approaches to funders and policymakers. Future efforts should focus on the harmonization of these metrics across more studies and the continued development of accessible tools that lower the barrier to rigorous OH evaluation, especially in low-resource settings where the burden of parasitic zoonoses is often highest.

Conclusion

The One Health approach provides an essential, transdisciplinary framework for addressing the complex challenges of wildlife parasitic zoonoses. Success requires integrating surveillance across human, animal, and environmental sectors, developing innovative therapeutic and diagnostic tools, and breaking down traditional silos between disciplines. Future directions must prioritize climate-resilient strategies, equitable resource distribution, and the development of broad-spectrum interventions that account for ecological complexity. For researchers and drug developers, this means embracing systems-based approaches that consider parasite transmission networks, host-microbiome interactions, and environmental determinants of disease. The growing threats of climate change, habitat fragmentation, and global connectivity make this integrated approach not just beneficial but necessary for pandemic prevention and sustainable ecosystem health management.

References

• 1. One health [https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health]
• 2. About One Health [https://www.cdc.gov/one-health/about/index.html]
• 3. The One Health Concept - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10902059/]
• 4. A Quantitative Approach to the Prioritization of Zoonotic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3749166/]
• 5. Performance of the One Health platform in zoonotic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1634641/full]
• 6. Wild Warnings: The Rise of Animal-borne Diseases [https://advances.umn.edu/fall-2025/wild-warnings-the-rise-of-animal-borne-diseases/]
• 7. The Importance of the One Health Concept in Combating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10460008/]
• 8. Increased human-animal interface & emerging zoonotic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8555610/]
• 9. Emerging and threatening vector-borne zoonoses in the world ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6493274/]
• 10. Networks and the ecology of parasite transmission [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3862525/]
• 11. Predicting the distribution of a parasite using the ecological ... [http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1870-34532010000300029]
• 12. Scientists use 'One Health' model to fight Chagas disease [https://news.uga.edu/scientists-use-one-health-model-to-fight-chagas-disease/]
• 13. Global Mammal Parasite Database [https://globalhealth.duke.edu/projects/global-mammal-parasite-database]
• 14. Drug repurposing for neglected and zoonotic diseases [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614724002232]
• 15. Spillover Risk in Environmental Impact Assessment [https://law.stanford.edu/2023/02/09/spillover-risk-in-environmental-impact-assessment-preventing-the-next-pandemic/]
• 16. Natural Spillover Risk and Disease Outbreaks - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12021773/]
• 17. A generalizable one health framework for the control of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9124177/]
• 18. in combating zoonotic One diseases... health approach parasitic [https://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/one-health-approach-in-combating-zoonotic-parasitic-diseases-integrating-human-animal-and-environmental-health-26394.html]
• 19. Wildlife parasites in a One Health world - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7106350/]
• 20. of Prioritization of zoonoses origin for multisectoral wildlife ... one [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11031778/]
• 21. The role of wildlife in the transmission of parasitic zoonoses in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4356871/]
• 22. Wildlife parasitology: sample collection and processing ... [https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-024-06226-4]
• 23. The One Health Approach to Toxoplasmosis - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6682582/]
• 24. Toxoplasma gondii: a parasite pollutant in the Arctic [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40473482/]
• 25. Toxoplasma gondii exposure in arctic-nesting geese [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213224414000182]
• 26. Echinococcosis [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/echinococcosis]
• 27. Prevalence and monetary loss due to cystic Echinococcosis in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6536491/]
• 28. A Systematic Review of the Epidemiology of Echinococcosis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3674998/]
• 29. The Case of Cystic Echinococcosis among Surgically ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6473301/]
• 30. A One Health framework for exploring zoonotic interactions ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49967-7]
• 31. One Health and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12115347/]
• 32. Integrated surveillance and early warning system of emerging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11893327/]
• 33. Developing One Health surveillance systems - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10665171/]
• 34. One Health implementation: A systematic scoping review ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11953970/]
• 35. Sentinels tracking viruses in various ecosystems [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12118972/]
• 36. Integrated environmental surveillance: the role of ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/wecn.2024.80]
• 37. Integrated surveillance systems for antibiotic resistance in a ... [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-024-19158-6]
• 38. Editorial: Zoonoses - a one health approach [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1332600/full]
• 39. Targeting Transmission Pathways for Emerging Zoonotic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4507309/]
• 40. One health zoonotic disease prioritization and systems ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10107678/]
• 41. Mapping Research Trends in One Health - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11499306/]
• 42. Drug repurposing for neglected and zoonotic diseases [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39542782/]
• 43. An artificial intelligence accelerated virtual screening ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52061-7]
• 44. Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery -- A Computational ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17696867/]
• 45. Application of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2020.00997/full]
• 46. PKPD model [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKPD_model]
• 47. Application of Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7348046/]
• 48. One Health adjuvant selection for vaccines against ... [https://www.explorationpub.com/Journals/em/Article/1001316]
• 49. Natural Vaccine Adjuvants and Immunopotentiators Derived ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7148613/]
• 50. All Hands on Deck: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Emerging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7087652/]
• 51. Transdisciplinary and social-ecological health frameworks ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405673118300576]
• 52. Integrative concepts and practices of health in ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42532-019-00038-y]
• 53. Parasite zoonoses and wildlife: One health, spillover and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7126848/]
• 54. Chart Gallery | Charts [https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/gallery]
• 55. Google Visualization API Reference | Charts [https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/reference]
• 56. Advancements and Challenges in Addressing Zoonotic Viral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11946417/]
• 57. Surveillance and response strategies for zoonotic diseases [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949704323000446]
• 58. Wildlife health investigations: needs, challenges and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4228302/]
• 59. A systematic review and meta-analysis - Research journals [https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000358]
• 60. Expanding access to veterinary clinical decision support in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2024.1349188/full]
• 61. PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7106425/]
• 62. How studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife implement the one ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352771424002556]
• 63. One World, One Health: Zoonotic Diseases, Parasitic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11083361/]
• 64. One Health strategies in combating antimicrobial resistance [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12143116/]
• 65. A One Health framework for global and local stewardship ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-01090-4]
• 66. WHO updates data visualization dashboard on ... [https://www.who.int/news/item/18-09-2024-who-updates-data-visualization-dashboard-on-antimicrobial-resistance-and-use]
• 67. One Health emerges as an essential framework at the ... [https://iucn.org/story/202510/one-health-emerges-essential-framework-iucn-world-conservation-congress-2025]
• 68. Why and How to Apply the One Health Concept/Approach ... [https://onehealthinitiative.com/why-and-how-to-apply-the-one-health-concept-approach-within-u-s-and-internationally-october-24-2025/]
• 69. European partnership on One Health Antimicrobial ... [https://jpiamr.eu/activities/one-health-amr/]
• 70. Veterinary clinicians as One Health messengers [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/conservation-science/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2025.1587169/full]
• 71. Critical Evaluation of Cross-Sectoral Collaborations to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8366749/]
• 72. Enhancing Multi-Sector Collaboration and Integrating ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40588-025-00257-w]
• 73. Exploring the One Health–One Welfare nexus and zoonoses [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949704325000253]
• 74. Confronting Zoonoses, Linking Human and Veterinary Medicine [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3294691/]
• 75. Parasites and Parasitic Diseases in Small Animals - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12024014/]
• 76. Research into zoonotic disease risks requires a One ... [https://www.cabi.org/news-article/research-into-zoonotic-disease-risks-requires-a-one-health-approach/]
• 77. Current Surveillance Systems for Detecting Zoonoses in Animals [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207997/]
• 78. Global One Health index for zoonoses: A performance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224005182]
• 79. Gaps in health security related to wildlife and environment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8061663/]
• 80. zoonotic disease - Press Office [https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2025/11/zoonoticdisease/]
• 81. A descriptive study of zoonotic disease risk at the human ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0008633]
• 82. A Quantitative Approach to the Prioritization of Zoonotic ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072172]
• 83. Why Is Equitable Resource Distribution Necessary for ... [https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/why-is-equitable-resource-distribution-necessary-for-global-cooperation/]
• 84. Methods to promote equity in health resource allocation in low [https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-019-0537-z]
• 85. Building capacity and equity in implementation science [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12315387/]
• 86. Adaptation of global One Health evaluation framework to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12613462/]
• 87. A minimum data standard for wildlife disease research and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12182584/]
• 88. Standardizing Wildlife Disease Data for Global Health ... [https://globalbiodefense.com/2025/06/24/wildlife-disease-data-standard/]
• 89. How studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife implement the one ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39585343/]
• 90. Zoonotic Tuberculosis and Dairy Products - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12337750/]
• 91. Rabies - Timor-Leste [https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2025-DON576]
• 92. Global burden of cystic echinococcosis: a 32-year analysis of ... [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-24502-5]
• 93. Trends in the global burden of cystic echinococcosis among ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12574883/]
• 94. Zoonotic TB [https://www.who.int/teams/global-programme-on-tuberculosis-and-lung-health/zoonotic-tb]
• 95. Rabies Status by Country [https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/country-data/index.html]
• 96. Rabies Virus Market Research Report 2025-2035 [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rabies-virus-market-research-report-090300146.html]
• 97. One Health Economics approach to prevention and control of ... [https://onehealthoutlook.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42522-025-00142-y]
• 98. Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Quick Guide with Examples and ... [https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/cost-benefit-analysis-for-projects-a-step-by-step-guide]
• 99. What Is Cost-Benefit Analysis? 4 Step Process - HBS Online [https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/cost-benefit-analysis]
• 100. Ethical issues in Nipah virus control and research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11347257/]
• 101. Nipah Virus: Transmission Dynamics of a Zoonotic ... [https://bmrat.org/index.php/BMRAT/article/view/975]
• 102. It's not only what you say, it's also how ... - BMC Public Health [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3416-z]
• 103. Nipah virus: epidemiology, pathology, immunobiology and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6830995/]
• 104. Development of Nipah virus drugs from FDA-approved drugs [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468111325000143]
• 105. Establishing the world's largest Nipah virus vaccine reserve [https://cepi.net/establishing-worlds-largest-nipah-virus-vaccine-reserve]
• 106. A large-scale behavior change intervention to prevent Nipah ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5485710/]
• 107. Evaluating one health: Are we demonstrating effectiveness? [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5458598/]
• 108. Applying the One Health approach to study the policy and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12593780/]
• 109. A framework for One Health research - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5454183/]