作者的回答。

Q1 Environmental Science
Infection Ecology and Epidemiology Pub Date : 2017-06-13 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745
Kerstin Myrtennäs, Krustyu Marinov, Anders Johansson, Marcin Niemcewicz, Edvin Karlsson, Mona Byström, Mats Forsman
{"title":"作者的回答。","authors":"Kerstin Myrtennäs, Krustyu Marinov, Anders Johansson, Marcin Niemcewicz, Edvin Karlsson, Mona Byström, Mats Forsman","doi":"10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We thank you for the feedback on our study about tularemia outbreaks in Bulgaria. The purpose of our study was not to make any conclusion or statement in favor of or against the use of traditional epidemiology data. We fully agree that genomic data without epidemiological and clinical data may not be enough to track the source of a pathogen. In fact, we have ourselves also emphasized this in several genomic publications on tularemia. However, the intention of the Bulgarian study was to test how bacterial strains of Francisella tularensis causing tularemia in wildlife and humans in the 1960s and the 1990s were genetically related. We found that F. tularensis strains were remarkably similar over long time periods and noted that this finding is compatible with the ‘natural nidality of disease’ concept put forward in the 1960s which postulates that some diseases occur naturally in wildlife in certain places (nidus) over time. We also found a close genetic relationship between an isolate from a muskrat infected in 1961 in Bulgaria and an isolate from a water rat infected in 1956 in Russia. These isolates differed by two nucleotides at the whole genome level. We suggested that implantation of muskrats into Bulgaria from Russia may have introduced the disease but avoided making definitive conclusions. We think that it is scientifically sensible to admit that relying on genetic results only is not sufficient to make definite conclusions. Finally, in an attempt to respond to the request for more epidemiological information we have now updated the information in the Supplementary material.","PeriodicalId":37446,"journal":{"name":"Infection Ecology and Epidemiology","volume":"7 1","pages":"1333745"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authors' reply.\",\"authors\":\"Kerstin Myrtennäs, Krustyu Marinov, Anders Johansson, Marcin Niemcewicz, Edvin Karlsson, Mona Byström, Mats Forsman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We thank you for the feedback on our study about tularemia outbreaks in Bulgaria. The purpose of our study was not to make any conclusion or statement in favor of or against the use of traditional epidemiology data. We fully agree that genomic data without epidemiological and clinical data may not be enough to track the source of a pathogen. In fact, we have ourselves also emphasized this in several genomic publications on tularemia. However, the intention of the Bulgarian study was to test how bacterial strains of Francisella tularensis causing tularemia in wildlife and humans in the 1960s and the 1990s were genetically related. We found that F. tularensis strains were remarkably similar over long time periods and noted that this finding is compatible with the ‘natural nidality of disease’ concept put forward in the 1960s which postulates that some diseases occur naturally in wildlife in certain places (nidus) over time. We also found a close genetic relationship between an isolate from a muskrat infected in 1961 in Bulgaria and an isolate from a water rat infected in 1956 in Russia. These isolates differed by two nucleotides at the whole genome level. We suggested that implantation of muskrats into Bulgaria from Russia may have introduced the disease but avoided making definitive conclusions. We think that it is scientifically sensible to admit that relying on genetic results only is not sufficient to make definite conclusions. Finally, in an attempt to respond to the request for more epidemiological information we have now updated the information in the Supplementary material.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Ecology and Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"1333745\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Ecology and Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Ecology and Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008686.2017.1333745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Authors' reply.
We thank you for the feedback on our study about tularemia outbreaks in Bulgaria. The purpose of our study was not to make any conclusion or statement in favor of or against the use of traditional epidemiology data. We fully agree that genomic data without epidemiological and clinical data may not be enough to track the source of a pathogen. In fact, we have ourselves also emphasized this in several genomic publications on tularemia. However, the intention of the Bulgarian study was to test how bacterial strains of Francisella tularensis causing tularemia in wildlife and humans in the 1960s and the 1990s were genetically related. We found that F. tularensis strains were remarkably similar over long time periods and noted that this finding is compatible with the ‘natural nidality of disease’ concept put forward in the 1960s which postulates that some diseases occur naturally in wildlife in certain places (nidus) over time. We also found a close genetic relationship between an isolate from a muskrat infected in 1961 in Bulgaria and an isolate from a water rat infected in 1956 in Russia. These isolates differed by two nucleotides at the whole genome level. We suggested that implantation of muskrats into Bulgaria from Russia may have introduced the disease but avoided making definitive conclusions. We think that it is scientifically sensible to admit that relying on genetic results only is not sufficient to make definite conclusions. Finally, in an attempt to respond to the request for more epidemiological information we have now updated the information in the Supplementary material.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infection Ecology and Epidemiology
Infection Ecology and Epidemiology Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection Ecology & Epidemiology aims to stimulate inter-disciplinary collaborations dealing with a range of subjects, from the plethora of zoonotic infections in humans, over diseases with implication in wildlife ecology, to advanced virology and bacteriology. The journal specifically welcomes papers from studies where researchers from multiple medical and ecological disciplines are collaborating so as to increase our knowledge of the emergence, spread and effect of new and re-emerged infectious diseases in humans, domestic animals and wildlife. Main areas of interest include, but are not limited to: 1.Zoonotic microbioorganisms 2.Vector borne infections 3.Gastrointestinal pathogens 4.Antimicrobial resistance 5.Zoonotic microbioorganisms in changing environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信