Brucella vulpis sp. nov., isolated from mandibular lymph nodes of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes).

Two slow-growing, Gram-negative, non-motile, non-spore-forming, coccoid bacteria (strains F60T and F965), isolated in Austria from mandibular lymph nodes of two red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), were subjected to a polyphasic taxonomic analysis. In a recent study, both isolates were assigned to the genus Brucella but could not be attributed to any of the existing species. Hence, we have analysed both strains in further detail to determine their exact taxonomic position and genetic relatedness to other members of the genus Brucella. The genome sizes of F60T and F965 were 3 236 779 and 3 237 765 bp, respectively. Each genome consisted of two chromosomes, with a DNA G+C content of 57.2 %. A genome-to-genome distance of >80 %, an average nucleotide identity (ANI) of 97 % and an average amino acid identity (AAI) of 98 % compared with the type species Brucella melitensis confirmed affiliation to the genus. Remarkably, 5 % of the entire genetic information of both strains was of non-Brucella origin, including as-yet uncharacterized bacteriophages and insertion sequences as well as ABC transporters and other genes of metabolic function from various soil-living bacteria. Core-genome-based phylogenetic reconstructions placed the novel species well separated from all hitherto-described species of the genus Brucella, forming a long-branched sister clade to the classical species of Brucella. In summary, based on phenotypic and molecular data, we conclude that strains F60T and F965 are members of a novel species of the genus Brucella, for which the name Brucella vulpis sp. nov. is proposed, with the type strain F60T ( = BCCN 09-2T = DSM 101715T).

A medical-toxicological view of tattooing.

Long perceived as a form of exotic self-expression in some social fringe groups, tattoos have left their maverick image behind and become mainstream, particularly for young people. Historically, tattoo-related health and safety regulations have focused on rules of hygiene and prevention of infections. Meanwhile, the increasing popularity of tattooing has led to the development of many new colours, allowing tattoos to be more spectacular than ever before. However, little is known about the toxicological risks of the ingredients used. For risk assessment, safe intradermal application of these pigments needs data for toxicity and biokinetics and increased knowledge about the removal of tattoos. Other concerns are the potential for phototoxicity, substance migration, and the possible metabolic conversion of tattoo ink ingredients into toxic substances. Similar considerations apply to cleavage products that are formed during laser-assisted tattoo removal. In this Review, we summarise the issues of concern, putting them into context, and provide perspectives for the assessment of the acute and chronic health effects associated with tattooing.