Developing a one health approach by using a multi-dimensional matrix

Intersections between climate change and antimicrobial resistance: a systematic scoping review

Climate change and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) present crucial challenges for the health and wellbeing of people, animals, plants, and ecosystems worldwide, yet the two are largely treated as separate and unrelated challenges. The aim of this systematic scoping Review is to understand the nature of the growing evidence base linking AMR and climate change and to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research. We conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed on 27 June, 2022. Our search strategy identified and screened 1687 unique results. Data were extracted and analysed from 574 records meeting our inclusion criteria. 222 (39%) of these reviewed articles discussed harmful synergies in which both climate change and AMR exist independently and can interact synergistically, resulting in negative outcomes. Just over a quarter (n=163; 28%) of the literature contained general or broad references to AMR and climate change, whereas a fifth (n=111; 19%) of articles referred to climate change influencing the emergence and evolution of AMR. 12% of articles (n=70) presented positive synergies between approaches aimed at addressing climate change and interventions targeting the management and control of AMR. The remaining literature focused on the shared drivers of AMR and climate change, the trade-offs between climate actions that have unanticipated negative outcomes for AMR (or vice versa), and, finally, the pathways through which AMR can negatively influence climate change. Our findings indicate multiple intersections through which climate change and AMR can and do connect. Research in this area is still nascent, disciplinarily isolated, and only beginning to converge, with few documents primarily focused on the equal intersection of both topics. Greater empirical and evidence-based attention is needed to investigate knowledge gaps related to specific climate change hazards and antimicrobial resistant fungi, helminths, protists, and viruses.

Comparative genome analysis reveals putative and novel antimicrobial resistance genes common to the nosocomial infection pathogens

The 21st century has witnessed several clinical outcomes regarding AMR. One health concept has been foreseen as a standard global public health initiative in ensuring human, animal and environmental health. The present study explores critical Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogens encompassing Acinetobacter baumannii (ACB), Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPX) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PAE). A comparative genomic analysis approach was utilized for identifying novel and putative genes coercing global health consequences stressing the significance of the above iatrogenic and nosocomial pathogens. O findings reveal that Pseudomonas aeruginosaPAO1 (PAE) possesses the largest genome, measuring 62,64,404 base pairs, containing 14,342 protein-coding genes and an elevated count of ORFs, surpassing other organisms. Notably, P. aeruginosa PAO1 exhibits a comprehensive metabolic landscape with 355 pathways and 1659 metabolic reactions, encompassing 200 biosynthesis and 132 degradation pathways. Transferases are the predominant enzyme category across all three genomes, followed by oxidoreductases and hydrolases. The pivotal role of beta-lactamase in conferring resistance against antibiotics is also evident in all three microbes. This investigation underscores the PAE genome harbours genes and enzymes associated with heightened virulence in antibiotic resistance. The holistic review combined with comparative genomics underlines the significance of delving into the genomes of these antimicrobial-resistant organisms. In silico methodologies are increasingly stressed in aiding the successful accomplishment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal -3: Good Health and Well-being. The prominent findings establish Carbapenem resistance and evolutionary lineages of the MCR-1 gene conferring AMR landscapes for future research.

Linkages between Soil Security and One Health: implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals

Soil provides multiple and diverse functions (e.g., the provision of food and the regulation of carbon), which underpin the health of animals, humans, the environment and the planet. However, the world's soils face existential challenges. To this end, the concept of Soil Security was developed, compelled to: "maintain and improve soils worldwide so that they can continue to provide food, fiber and fresh water, contribute to energy and climate sustainability and help to maintain biodiversity and the overall protection of ecosystem goods and services." In parallel, the concept of One Health likewise works across the human-animal-environment interface, highly relevant for the goals of Soil Security. In this review, we evaluated the roles which both the Soil Security and One Health concepts have served in the literature between 2012 and 2023 and explore the potential linkages between both concepts. We outline that both concepts are used in disparate fields, despite considerable overlap in aims and objectives. We highlight the Soil Health concept as a potential connector between Soil Security and One Health. Overall, we argue that both Soil Security and One Health are highly complementary fields of scientific inquiry with solid leverage for translation into policy and practice. However, there is a need to define One Health dimensions, as has been done for Soil Security. As such, we proffer five measurable dimensions for One Health, the "5Cs"-Capacity, Condition, Capital, Connectivity and Codification-to allow for an overall measure of One Health. Finally, we advocate for a biosphere-focused framework to collectively make progress toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and other global existential challenges.

The approaching pilot for One Health governance index

BACKGROUND

One Health approach advocates realizing the best health and harmonious symbiosis of human, animal and natural environment through cross-border, multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary cooperation. The good governance model is the leading factor for the performance of One Health governance. In order to tackle the complex problems in the One Health governance at the global level, the variation of One Health governance in different countries was analyzed by a set of indicators within the One Health system.

METHOD

The capacity of One Health governance was assessed after establishment of a set of indicators for the One Health governance index (OHGI) following the methodology of the global One Health index. The data to calculate OHGI was collected from various database sources, including the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, and official health-related institutions of various countries. Eight indicators (including 19 sub-indicators) were employed in the OHGI system to comprehensively evaluate the capacity of One Health governance in 146 countries of the world.

RESULTS

Among the 146 countries scored in the OHGI system, the average score was 34.11, with a median score of 31.49, ranged from 8.50 to 70.28. Most countries with higher OHGI scores come from Europe and Central Asia, East Asia and the Pacific and North America, while countries with the lower OHGI scores are almost from sub-Saharan Africa. Six countries scored more than 65 points, including Australia, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, the United States of America and Finland, indicating that these countries are relatively mature in most aspects of One Health governance. However, there were some developing countries with OHGI scored lower than 15. Therefore, the gap between countries with higher OHGI scores and those with lower OHGI scores is more than 60.

CONCLUSIONS

Good governance on One Health is an important indicator to measure One Health's governance capacity. The political stability, the level of rule of law and economic conditions in different regions are significantly correlated with the One Health governance capacity. Actions need to be taken urgently to close the gap of One Health governance between different regions.

Evolution and expansion of the One Health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: A call to action

One Health is a transdisciplinary approach used to address complex concerns related to human, animal, plant, and ecosystem health. One Health frameworks and operational tools are available to support countries and communities, particularly for the prevention and control of zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance and the protection of food safety. However, One Health has yet to be implemented in a manner that fully considers the complexities and interconnectedness of the diverse influences that have impacts at a larger system level. This lack of consideration can undermine the sustainability of any positive outcomes. To ensure the One Health approach can function effectively within the new global context of converging and escalating health, social, economic, and ecological crises, it must evolve and expand in three overlapping dimensions: (1) Scope: the partners, knowledge, and knowledge systems included, (2) Approach: the techniques, methodologies, and scholarship considered, and (3) Worldview inclusivity: the interweaving of other worldviews together with the mainstream scientific worldview that currently predominates. Diverse partners and knowledge from outside the mainstream health and scientific sectors, including Indigenous peoples and representatives of local communities, and traditionally generated knowledge, must be included. These systems of knowledge can then be braided together with mainstream science to comprise a holistic framework for decision-making. Scholarship and methodologies being applied in other fields and contexts to solve complex challenges and manage uncertainty, such as collaborative governance, social-ecologic systems theory, and complexity science, must be recognized and incorporated. The spectrum of considered worldviews must also expand to authentically integrate the expanded scope and approach into action and sustainable impact. By increasing community and social engagement and by recognizing and entwining different worldviews, the plurality of disciplines, and traditional and scientific ways of knowing to address community concerns in the contexts in which they exist, we can ensure that One Health remains effective and true to its paradigm in our rapidly changing and complex world.

Partnership for International Development: Finland-Nigeria Conference on Climate, Food, Health and Entrepreneurship

A joint collaboration between the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland, Finland and the Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi, Lagos, Nigeria was organised as a hybrid conference on several topics that are related to climate, food, health and entrepreneurship. The utilisation of natural resources in both regions is an important theme in meeting the sustainable development goals agenda. The topics discussed were multidisciplinary, they include Nigerian indigenous foods, bioeconomy, circular economy, nutrition, health, innovation and entrepreneurship under four themes (Climate, Food, Health and Entrepreneurship). There were dignitaries from Finland and Nigeria. The presenters are researchers from Nigerian universities (University of Ibadan, University of Abuja and Eko university, Lagos), Nigerian Federal Institute of Industrial research centre and from the Finnish side we have the university of Lapland, Rovaniemi, University of Oulu, Oulu and the Centria University of Applied Sciences, Kokkola. The topics discussed will serve as training materials for students and learners, the discussion focussed on research opportunities for institutions in both countries. The experts from both countries will continue to dialogue on the possibility of promoting common topics as research agenda in these important areas with the possibilities of creating more jobs.