Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Identifies pathogenic leptospires in neighborhoods, indicating community engagement enhances public health efforts.
This study aimed to identify areas with the presence of pathogenic Leptospira in marginalized neighborhoods of Santa Fe, Argentina, through a participatory research approach. Additionally, we aimed to optimize a low-cost and sensitive detection method suitable for public sector laboratories in resource-limited settings. Three neighborhoods highly vulnerable to hydrological risks and leptospirosis outbreaks—Colastiné Sur, La Vuelta del Paraguayo, and Chalet—were selected. A series of meetings with local residents were conducted to discuss the risks of leptospirosis and to collaboratively map high-priority water sampling sites based on local knowledge and perceived exposure. Community members then participated actively in sample collection and documentation of environmental conditions. In parallel, we optimized a DNA extraction and qPCR protocol tailored for complex environmental matrices, enabling the sensitive detection of pathogenic Leptospira . Leptospira DNA was detected in 21.1% of the 33 water samples collected: 9.09% in La Vuelta del Paraguayo, 18.18% in Chalet, and 36.36% in Colastiné Sur. The results were subsequently shared and discussed with community members, fostering a dialogue between scientific findings and local knowledge. This study is the first of its kind in Santa Fe and highlights the dual value of community engagement in environmental health surveillance and the implementation of an affordable and robust molecular tool for leptospirosis monitoring. Our findings illustrate how integrating participatory mapping with environmental sampling can guide the molecular detection of Leptospira in urban water bodies—an approach that has rarely been documented—and underscore the potential of combining local knowledge and accessible molecular tools to strengthen public health responses in flood-prone settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carletti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: