PubMed · 11875855
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Wierup. 2001. Why do we record disease?. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-42-s1-s7
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Single-locus disorders in domesticated animals were among the first Mendelian traits to be documented after the rediscovery of Mendelism, and to be included in early linkage maps. The use of linkage maps and (increasingly) comparative genomics has been central to the identification of the causative gene for single-locus disorders of considerable practical importance. The 'score-card' in domestic animals is now more than 100 disorders for which the molecular lesion has been identified and hence for which a DNA test is available. Because of the limited lifespan of any such test, a cost-effective and hence popular means of protecting the intellectual property inherent in a DNA test is not to publish the discovery. While understandable, this practice creates a disconcerting precedent. For multifactorial disorders that are scored on an all-or-none basis or into many classes, the effectiveness of control schemes could be greatly enhanced by selection on estimated breeding values for liability. Genetic variation for resistance to pathogens and parasites is ubiquitous. Selection for resistance can therefore be successful. Because of the technical and welfare challenges inherent in the requirement to expose animals to pathogens or parasites in order to be able to select for resistance, there is a very active search for DNA markers for resistance. The first practical fruits of this research were seen in 2002, with the launch of a national scrapie control programme in the UK.
Veterinary vaccines are being used with increasing frequency in the United States to protect the health of animals. However, humans may be inadvertently exposed to these products by means of unintentional inoculation or other routes of exposure. The potential for both exposure and for adverse consequences secondary to exposure to veterinary vaccines may be growing. With the exception of brucellosis vaccines, there have been few reports of suspected or confirmed adverse events in humans associated with the use of animal vaccines, but it is unclear whether that is because few adverse events occur or because adverse events are not recognized and/or reported. Results of a search for relevant literature and of communications with health officials at governmental and private institutions suggest that enhanced efforts are needed to recognize and to prevent human illness associated with use of veterinary vaccines.
Following the ban of all food animal growth-promoting antibiotics by Sweden in 1986, the European Union banned avoparcin in 1997 and bacitracin, spiramycin, tylosin and virginiamycin in 1999. Three years later, the only attributable effect in humans has been a diminution in acquired resistance in enterococci isolated from human faecal carriers. There has been an increase in human infection from vancomycin-resistant enterococci in Europe, probably related to the increased in usage of vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant staphylococci. The ban of growth promoters has, however, revealed that these agents had important prophylactic activity and their withdrawal is now associated with a deterioration in animal health, including increased diarrhoea, weight loss and mortality due to Escherichia coli and Lawsonia intracellularis in early post-weaning pigs, and clostridial necrotic enteritis in broilers. A directly attributable effect of these infections is the increase in usage of therapeutic antibiotics in food animals, including that of tetracycline, aminoglycosides, trimethoprim/sulphonamide, macrolides and lincosamides, all of which are of direct importance in human medicine. The theoretical and political benefit of the widespread ban of growth promoters needs to be more carefully weighed against the increasingly apparent adverse consequences.