Biosecurity is a tool used to alleviate the introduction, emergence and spread of diseases caused by infectious agents. It comprises different health-management activities that need to be followed to reduce the passage and dissemination of infectious agents within and among farms, poultry flocks, and humans, as well as within a country, among countries, or the whole globe. In terms of public health measures, biosecurity applies to practices that will reduce contact between poultry and humans and thereby reduce zoonotic disease transmission. Two of the common biosecurity measures are bioexclusion and biocontainment which themselves are further categorized as segregation/isolation, movement control and hygiene/sanitation/disinfection. Isolation is about putting poultry under an exclusively isolated environment where it lives alone without any interference from any source external to the poultry or at least under reduced and controlled interference. Movement/traffic control and sanitation measures are practices to follow the isolation of poultry or preparatory phase as in the case of sanitation of poultry houses before introduction of poultry. These techniques have been effective in controlling poultry diseases like avian influenza, exotic Newcastle, Marek’s disease, and any other diseases. Depending upon the underlying situation either bioexclusion or biocontainment measure will be used to control these infectious diseases of poultry.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, was first identified in China in 2019. The exact origin of the disease remains uncertain, with theories suggesting it may have emerged from animals or accidentally leaked from a research laboratory. If the hypothesis that COVID-19 originated from a research laboratory is accurate, it is crucial to investigate potential pathways for pathogens to escape from biocontainment research animal facilities (BRAFs). We examine key biosafety issues associated with BRAFs, including inadequate decontamination procedures for water and experimental samples, handling high biosafety level pathogens in lower level laboratories, risks of animal bites and sharps injuries, contamination of bedding and enrichment materials, and improper management and transportation of biohazard samples. Additionally, we discuss the role of veterinarians in African research animal facilities and the challenges they encounter in maintaining biocontainment standards. We emphasize the importance of routine monitoring of effluent water to detect possible disease outbreaks. We recommend a thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify potential sources of pathogen release from BRAFs, which could serve as hotspots for future disease outbreaks. Findings from such investigations will inform the development of policies aimed at safeguarding human populations from future pandemics and preventing BRAFs from becoming sources of infectious disease outbreaks.

Biocontainment techniques for genetically modified yeasts (GMYs) are pivotal due to the importance of these organisms for biotechnological processes and also due to the design of new yeast strains by using synthetic biology tools and technologies. Due to the large genetic modifications that many yeast strains display, it is highly desirable to avoid the leakage of GMY cells into natural environments and, consequently, the spread of synthetic genes and circuits by horizontal or vertical gene transfer mechanisms within the microorganisms. Moreover, it is also desirable to avoid that patented yeast gene technologies spread outside the production facility. In this review, it was evaluated the different biocontainment technologies currently available for GMYs. Interestingly, uniplex-type biocontainment approaches (UTBAs), which relies on nutrient auxotrophies induced by gene mutation or deletion, or the expression of simple kill switches apparatus, are still the major biocontainment approaches still in use with GMY. While bacteria like Escherichia coli account for advanced biocontainment technologies based on synthetic biology and multiplex-type biocontainment approaches (MTBAs), GMYs are distant from this scenario due to many reasons. Thus, a comparison of different UTBAs and MTBAs applied for GMY and genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) was made, indicating the major advances of biocontainment techniques for GMYs.