Reframing Critical Needs in Vector Biology and Management of Vector-Borne Disease

Policy Platform Reframing Critical Needs in Vector Biology and Management of Vector-Borne Disease Shirley Luckhart 1 *, Steven W. Lindsay 2 , Anthony A. James 3 , Thomas W. Scott 4 1 Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California at Davis, Davis, California, United States of America, 2 School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom, 3 Departments of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America, 4 Department of Entomology, University of California at Davis, Davis, California, United States of America Background Recent advances in empirical, method- ological, and theoretical aspects of vector biology are an impetus for reexamining critical research needs aimed at improv- ing human health. The discipline of vec- tor biology is characterized by its empha- sis on disease prevention, and successes are well documented. Vector interventions were essential for reduction of malaria and yellow fever in the 1950s and 1960s, dengue in Singapore and Cuba [1], and onchocerciasis in West Africa [2]. Unfor- tunately, victories are too often the excep- tion, or when they do occur they are diffi- cult to sustain. Malaria remains among the biggest infectious disease killers; lymphatic filariasis has proven difficult to eliminate; Chagas disease, African trypanosomiasis, onchocerciasis, and leishmaniasis are un- derserved; dengue continues to expand its geographic range; and West Nile and chikungunya viruses invaded new conti- nents with little resistance [3,4]. Although vector control remains an essential com- ponent in the battle against vector-borne disease (VBD), persistence of vector-borne pathogens and resilience of their arthro- pod vectors continue to motivate the search for novel solutions. In the past two decades vector biolo- gists have responded to this challenge by reassessing the status of research in their field [5–8]. Contributions range from an Institute of Medicine report that, 17 years ago, identified VBDs as among the most important emerging microbial threats to the United States [9] to the current call for fundamental shifts in areas of emphasis, execution, and application of VBD re- search [10]. Reviews revealed progress in some areas (e.g., genomics, genetics, and quantitative analyses), while accomplish- ments in other areas lagged behind expec- tations (e.g., field evaluation of transgenic vectors and development of insecticides with novel modes of action). Common to all of these reports is the premise that the overall goal should be to reduce or prevent pathogen transmission and disease. Ad- justments in sequential reports dealt with www.plosntds.org the perceived best path to reaching that objective. Across these reviews, recom- mendations can be distilled to five major needs: (1) novel intervention tools (e.g., new public health insecticides, biological control agents, and genetics-based instru- ments [11,12]); (2) improved disease pre- vention strategies (e.g., integrating differ- ent vector control strategies and combin- ing vector control with other prevention tools, such as drugs and vaccines, to attack multiple VBDs [1,13]); (3) enhanced sur- veillance methods and data analysis; (4) broader integration of scientific subdisci- plines (e.g., vector biology, clinical re- search, natural and social environmental biology); and (5) expanded training oppor- tunities [12,14]. Identifying Central Issues in VBD Control Despite these well-intended recommen- dations, VBD prevention continues to be challenged by incomplete coordination among individuals with complementary expertise, inability to implement long-term solutions, and reluctance to embrace the complexity of vector biology and pathogen transmission systems in intervention strat- egies. In this context, an international meeting of vector biologists (participants are listed in the acknowledgments section) was convened at the University of Cali- fornia, Davis, in January 2008 to develop a revised agenda based on the principal theme of improving integration in VBD management. The meeting format em- phasized: (1) redefining common challeng- es and opportunities across a range of VBDs; (2) initiating and sustaining strate- gically planned interactions among inves- tigators within and among a diversity of research areas; and (3) developing a working list of research areas that merit increased attention. A Challenge Issued Consistent with the ‘‘working list’’ con- cept we present the following challenge to our readers: the content of this article must be modified through vigorous and open discussion of supportive, dissenting, and divergent opinions to consolidate owner- ship of a collective agenda that results in action, reaction, collaboration, and change. We appreciate the support of the Public Library of Science to moderate these first steps through submission of online comments and discussion by mem- bers of our community and others who would like to contribute to this process. Themes and Strategies The most significant outcome of the meeting was the identification of three overarching themes: integration, sustain- ability, and heterogeneity. Integration of tools and strategies is necessary to increase the potential for improved public health outcomes across different diseases, trans- Citation: Luckhart S, Lindsay SW, James AA, Scott TW (2010) Reframing Critical Needs in Vector Biology and Management of Vector-Borne Disease. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 4(2): e566. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000566 Editor: Ellis McKenzie, Fogarty International NIH, United States of America Published February 23, 2010 Copyright: s 2010 Luckhart et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This document is a summary of thoughts and ideas presented at a meeting (January 2008, ‘‘Emerging Barriers to the Management of Vector-Borne Diseases’’) funded in part by the United States-Japan Cooperative Medical Sciences Program Parasitic Diseases Panel and the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Office of Rare Diseases. The Mosquito Research Laboratory of UC Davis provided funds to defray the costs of publication. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: sluckhart@ucdavis.edu February 2010 | Volume 4 | Issue 2 | e566