Phylogeny and genetic diversity of Italian species of hares (genus Lepus)

In this study we have analysed the genetic variability in ca. 700 samples belonging to six species of genus Lepus using maternal and biparental molecular markers (mitochondrial DNA, microsatellites, Single Nucleotide Polimorphisms). We aimed to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of species of hares living in Europe, and assess the occurrence of hybridization between the European hare Lepus europaeus and the Italian hare Lepus corsicanus. Results showed a deep genetic differentiation and absence of hybridization between L. corsicanus and L. europaeus, confirming that they are distinct and distantly related biological species. In contrast, we showed small genetic distances and a close phylogenetic relationship between the Italian hare and Cantabrian hare L. castroviejoi, which suggest a deeper evaluation of their taxonomic status. Populations of L. corsicanus are geographically differentiated. In particular, the peninsular and Sicilian populations of Italian hares are sharply genetically distinct, which calls for avoiding any translocation between Italy and Sicily. Information on genetic variability and population structure is being used to implement the Italian Action Plan for L. corsicanus.

A novel specific genetic translocation in epithelioid hemangioendotelioma, showing a fusion of the WWTR1 and CAMTA1 genes, supports the monoclonality of multifocal epithelioid hemangioendotelioma.

Like other vascular tumors, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is multifocal in approximately 50% of cases, and it is unclear whether the separate lesions represent multifocal disease or metastases. We hypothesized that the identification of an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in different EHEs from the same patient supports the monoclonal origin of EHE. To test our hypothesis, we undertook a molecular analysis of two multicentric EHEs of the liver, including separate tumor samples from each patient. Matherial and Methods: We retrieved two cases of EHE with available tissue for molecular analysis. In both cases, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed to identify the presence of the WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement to confirm the histologic diagnosis of EHE, as previously described. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) products were analyzed by electrophoresis and the RT-PCR–amplified products were sequenced using the Sanger method. Results: FISH analysis revealed signal abnormalities in both WWTR1 and CAMTA1. Combined results confirmed the presence of the t(1;3)(1p36.23;3q25.1) translocation in both cases of EHE. Using RT-PCR analysis, we found that the size of the rearranged bands was identical in the different tumors from each patient. The sequence of the fusion gene confirmed a different WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in each patient, but an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in the different lesions from each patient. Discussion: Because of its generally indolent clinical course, EHE is commonly classified as a multifocal, rather than metastatic, disease. In this study, we examined two cases of multifocal liver EHE and found an identical WWTR1-CAMTA1 rearrangement in each lesion from the same patient, but not between the two patients. These findings suggest that multifocal EHE arises from metastasis of the same neoplastic clone rather than from the simultaneous formation of multiple neoplastic clones, which supports the monoclonal origin of multifocal EHE.