Cited by 8,338Zoonotic diseases and public healthViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchData-Driven Disease Surveillance

Global trends in emerging infectious diseases

Open access
Jones, Kate E., Patel, Nikkita G., Levy, Marc A., Storeygard, Adam, Balk, Deborah, Gittleman, John L., Daszak, Peter·2008·Nature

Abstract

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) are a significant burden on global economies and public health. Their emergence is thought to be driven largely by socio-economic, environmental and ecological factors, but no comparative study has explicitly analysed these linkages to understand global temporal and spatial patterns of EIDs. Here we analyse a database of 335 EID 'events' (origins of EIDs) between 1940 and 2004, and demonstrate non-random global patterns. EID events have risen significantly over time after controlling for reporting bias, with their peak incidence (in the 1980s) concomitant with the HIV pandemic. EID events are dominated by zoonoses (60.3% of EIDs): the majority of these (71.8%) originate in wildlife (for example, severe acute respiratory virus, Ebola virus), and are increasing significantly over time. We find that 54.3% of EID events are caused by bacteria or rickettsia, reflecting a large number of drug-resistant microbes in our database. Our results confirm that EID origins are significantly correlated with socio-economic, environmental and ecological factors, and provide a basis for identifying regions where new EIDs are most likely to originate (emerging disease 'hotspots'). They also reveal a substantial risk of wildlife zoonotic and vector-borne EIDs originating at lower latitudes where reporting effort is low. We conclude that global resources to counter disease emergence are poorly allocated, with the majority of the scientific and surveillance effort focused on countries from where the next important EID is least likely to originate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature06536

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jones et al. found that zoonotic diseases arising from wildlife were only ∼1% more likely to emerge where the diversity of wild mammals was high.

    “Although zoonotic diseases arising from wildlife were only ∼1% more likely to emerge where the diversity of wild mammals was high, Jones et al. (5) concluded”

    From Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

    The main text reports that wildlife host species richness significantly predicts the emergence of wildlife-origin zoonotic diseases. Table 1 gives a value of 1.01 for wildlife host richness, consistent with roughly 1% higher odds per unit of richness. It does not report that emergence is only 1% more likely in high-diversity places than in low-diversity places; the claim omits that important distinction. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Geographic comparisons through large-scale correlational studies based on the "total host diversity" model have tended to report a weak but positive effect of mammal species richness on zoonotic diseases, but these studies show much stronger positive correlations with other factors, such as human population density.

    “Geographic comparisons through large-scale correlational studies (based on the “total host diversity” model in Fig. 1) have tended to report a weak but positive effect of mammal species richness on zoonotic diseases, but these studies show much stronger positive correlations with other factors, such as human population density (e.g., refs. 5 and 17).”

    From Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Jones et al. observed that high human population density increased the likelihood of the emergence of a zoonotic disease from wildlife by 75 to 90%, an effect almost two orders-of-magnitude greater than the effect of mammalian diversity.

    “Of note was their observation that high human population density increased the likelihood of the emergence of a zoonotic disease from wildlife by 75 to 90%, an effect almost two orders-of-magnitude greater than the effect of mammalian diversity.”
  • Zoonotic diseases appear to be emerging more frequently.

    “These so-called zoonotic diseases, which result from cross-species transmission of pathogens between humans and other vertebrate animals, appear to be emerging more frequently (5).”
  • Jones et al. concluded that wildlife host species richness is a significant predictor for the emergence of zoonotic emerging infectious diseases with a wildlife origin, with no role for human population growth, latitude or rainfall.

    “Jones et al. (5) concluded that “wildlife host species richness is a significant predictor for the emergence of zoonotic EIDs [emerging infectious diseases] with a wildlife origin, with no role for human population growth, latitude or rainfall.””

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]9. Morse, S. S. in Emerging Viruses (ed. Morse, S. S.) 10-28 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1993).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, K. E., Patel, N. G., Levy, M. A., Storeygard, A., Balk, D., Gittleman, J. L., & Daszak, P.
Affiliations
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
  • EcoHealth Alliance (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Baruch College (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Daszak, Peter
Venue
Nature
Published
2008-02
Volume
451
Issue
7181
Pages
990-993
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2127435093
Cited by
8,338
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 456 · 2025: 599 · 2024: 624 · 2023: 741 · 2022: 793 · 2021: 863 · 2020: 798 · 2019: 389 · 2018: 388 · 2017: 377 · 2016: 348 · 2015: 316 · 2014: 376 · 2013: 307 · 2012: 309
FWCI
213.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • New York Community Trust
  • V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Earth Institute, Columbia University
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI079231)
  • Fogarty International Center (R01TW005869)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007338)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Zoonotic diseases and public health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
Keywords
emerging infectious diseases, disease hotspots, zoonoses, socioeconomic factors, drug-resistant bacteria, antibiotic resistance, HIV/AIDS epidemic, disease surveillance, reporting bias, vector-borne diseases
MeSH terms
Animals, Drug Resistance, Microbial, Environment, Geography, Humans, Risk, Socioeconomic Factors, Zoonoses, Incidence, Databases, Factual, Communicable Diseases, Emerging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review