ArticlePloS one2026
Monitoring the health of wolves (Canis lupus): Integrating conservation and public health.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The grey wolf (Canis lupus) population is expanding in parts of Europe due to legal protection and favorable ecological conditions. As wolves increasingly move into urban and suburban areas, interactions with domestic dogs become more frequent, raising the risk of pathogen transmission and posing potential threats to both wolf conservation and public health. This study investigated the health status of wolves in the Foreste Casentinesi National Park (Italy) using non-invasive fecal sampling conducted between May 2019 and March 2020. Samples were genetically analyzed to identify individuals and then screened for viral pathogens, Canine Coronavirus and Parvovirus, using PCR, Sanger sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis. Parasitological examinations were performed using flotation techniques on whole samples, and real-time PCR targeting Echinococcus granulosus and E. multilocularis was conducted on selected samples. Of the 260 samples collected, genetic analysis identified 80 individual wolves belonging to 8 packs. Only one sample tested positive for Coronavirus (1.2%), and none for Parvovirus. The detected sequence clustered with strains previously reported in wolves and foxes in Italy. Copromicroscopy revealed a high prevalence of veterinary-relevant endoparasites, including Eucoleus spp. (90.0%), Sarcocystis spp. (42.5%), Taeniids (28.7%), and Ancylostomatids (26.2%). Trichuris vulpis, Toxocara canis, and coccidia showed prevalence rates below 2%. All 104 samples tested for E. granulosus or E. multilocularis were negative. These findings suggest that while wolves in the FCNP commonly harbor several canine parasites, their role in the transmission of zoonotic pathogens appears limited. Although phylogenetic data suggest that coronavirus strains tend to cluster within wildlife species, molecular data on domestic dogs remain scarce. Nonetheless, the high prevalence of shared parasites highlights the need for ongoing surveillance in both wild canids and domestic carnivores. As wolves increasingly inhabit human-dominated landscapes, understanding disease dynamics at the wildlife-domestic interface is essential for effective conservation and public health strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.