Canine rabies in Australia: a review of preparedness and research needs

Australia is unique as a populated continent in that canine rabies is exotic, with only one likely incursion in 1867. This is despite the presence of a widespread free-ranging dog population, which includes the naturalized dingo, feral domestic dogs and dingo-dog cross-breeds. To Australia's immediate north, rabies has recently spread within the Indonesian archipelago, with outbreaks occurring in historically free islands to the east including Bali, Flores, Ambon and the Tanimbar Islands. Australia depends on strict quarantine protocols to prevent importation of a rabid animal, but the risk of illegal animal movements by fishing and recreational vessels circumventing quarantine remains. Predicting where rabies will enter Australia is important, but understanding dog population dynamics and interactions, including contact rates in and around human populations, is essential for rabies preparedness. The interactions among and between Australia's large populations of wild, free-roaming and restrained domestic dogs require quantification for rabies incursions to be detected and controlled. The imminent risk of rabies breaching Australian borders makes the development of disease spread models that will assist in the deployment of cost-effective surveillance, improve preventive strategies and guide disease management protocols vitally important. Here, we critically review Australia's preparedness for rabies, discuss prevailing assumptions and models, identify knowledge deficits in free-roaming dog ecology relating to rabies maintenance and speculate on the likely consequences of endemic rabies for Australia.

Nonlesions, misdiagnoses, missed diagnoses, and other interpretive challenges in fish histopathology studies: a guide for investigators, authors, reviewers, and readers.

Differentiating salient histopathologic changes from normal anatomic features or tissue artifacts can be decidedly challenging, especially for the novice fish pathologist. As a consequence, findings of questionable accuracy may be reported inadvertently, and the potential negative impacts of publishing inaccurate histopathologic interpretations are not always fully appreciated. The objectives of this article are to illustrate a number of specific morphologic findings in commonly examined fish tissues (e.g., gills, liver, kidney, and gonads) that are frequently either misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed, and to address related issues involving the interpretation of histopathologic data. To enhance the utility of this article as a guide, photomicrographs of normal and abnormal specimens are presented. General recommendations for generating and publishing results from histopathology studies are additionally provided. It is hoped that the furnished information will be a useful resource for manuscript generation, by helping authors, reviewers, and readers to critically assess fish histopathologic data.