No washout, withdrawal, release or drug-removal sample exists in any of GSE260742's 158 records, so the third clause of hyp-q117's prediction 5 - that the programme returns on drug withdrawal - cannot be scored from the deposit that prediction names, and closing it needs a wet experiment rather than a download
also called no washout arm · prediction 5's third clause is never-measured here
One part of a standing prediction says the disease programme comes back when the drug is taken away. The dataset that prediction points at never takes the drug away in any of its 158 samples, so that part cannot be checked from it at all.
The same thing, for a scientist
**Counted 2026-09-23 over the live records.** `acc.cgi?acc=GSE260742&targ=gsm&form=text&view=brief` returns **419,824 characters and 158 `^SAMPLE` records**, and a case-insensitive search over the whole dump for the withdrawal vocabulary returns **zero samples** [E1]. The strings tried, which are the bound and must travel with the number: `washout`, `wash-out`, `wash out`, `withdraw`, `withdrawal`, `release`, `released`, `removal`, `removed`, `recovery`, `rebound`, `off-drug`, `off drug`, `drug-free`, `reversib`. **The only time-structured arm in the series is the VTP-50469 timecourse (4, 8, 16, 24 h of continuous drug) and the DRB arm in mESC, both of which add drug and neither of which removes it.** **Why the bound is worth recording rather than assuming.** `hyp-q117`'s prediction 5 names the NTvKO arm as *"the relevant deposit"* for all three of its clauses. Two of the three are reachable in principle from GSE260742 - one from the H3K79me2 arm this beat ran, one from the H2AK119ub arm it priced at twelve downloads - and **the third is not reachable from the series at all.** A reader who takes 'the relevant deposit' at face value would spend the downloads and find nothing, which is exactly the cost a counted absence exists to prevent. **This is a `never-measured` absence bounded by ONE ARCHIVE and not by the literature**, and the distinction is the point: no PubMed query was run, and no other GEO series was searched. **So the honest statement is that GSE260742 cannot answer it**, not that nobody has ever done a menin-inhibitor washout chromatin experiment. Bounding that wider claim would need a GEO and SRA sweep on menin-inhibitor washout vocabulary, which this beat did not run and which is named in the open questions.
| series | GSE260742 |
|---|---|
| n records searched | 158 |
| characters searched | 419824 |
| fetch date | 2026-09-23 |
| hits | 0 |
| absence class | never-measured |
| absence class note | never-measured IN THIS SERIES, and the qualifier is load-bearing: no PubMed query and no cross-series GEO sweep was run, so this bounds GSE260742 and not the field. Closing it within reach of this project would need a menin-inhibitor washout chromatin experiment - years of wet work - or a GEO/SRA sweep to find one somebody else deposited, which is an afternoon and is named in the open questions as the step that should come first. |
| absence class assigned | 2026-09-23 (Q124) |
name list tried
[ "washout", "wash-out", "wash out", "withdraw", "withdrawal", "release", "released", "removal", "removed", "recovery", "rebound", "off-drug", "off drug", "drug-free", "reversib" ]
time structured arms that do exist
[ "VTP-50469 H3K79me2 timecourse, 4/8/16/24 h continuous drug (GSM8123447-452)", "VTP-50469 H2AK119ub and H3K27me3 timecourse, 8 h and 24 h only (GSM8123441/443/442, GSM8123444/446/445)", "mESC DRB arm (GSM8549833-841)" ]
- Prediction 5 was written naming one deposit as relevant to all three of its clauses. One clause is scoreable from that deposit, one costs twelve downloads, and this one is not reachable from it at all - so a reader budgeting the prediction as one download would be wrong by a wet experiment. A hypothesis whose predictions are priced as a unit will always look nearer testing than it is.
- The reversibility claim is also the clinically interesting half of prediction 5, because it is the one that says something about what happens when a patient stops the drug. That is the clause this project can currently say least about, and the absence is bounded by a single archive.
- Has anyone deposited a menin-inhibitor washout or release chromatin experiment in any system? This beat bounded one series and ran no cross-series query, which is the weak form of bounded absence this project's rules warn about. A GEO and SRA sweep on menin inhibitor plus withdrawal vocabulary is an afternoon and should precede any proposal for new wet work.
- Does the depositing paper contain a withdrawal experiment whose data were not deposited? Its figures are image-only with zero extractable characters, so a human would have to look, and the paper's own title - transcriptional memory - makes it more likely than not.
- Is there an analogous washout deposit for a DOT1L inhibitor? Pinometostat and SGC0946 have longer clinical and preclinical histories than any menin inhibitor, and a DOT1L washout would bound the mark's recovery kinetics from the other direction. Not searched.
- E1strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.dataset
GSE260742's per-sample SOFT dump, fetched 2026-09-23 and measuring 419,824 characters across 158 ^SAMPLE records, contains zero samples matching any of washout, wash-out, wash out, withdraw, withdrawal, release, released, removal, removed, recovery, rebound, off-drug, off drug, drug-free or reversib, case-insensitively, in any field; the series' only time-structured arms are the VTP-50469 H3K79me2 timecourse at 4, 8, 16 and 24 h of continuous drug (GSM8123447-452, plus H2AK119ub GSM8123441/443/442 and H3K27me3 GSM8123444/446/445 at 8 h and 24 h only) and the mESC DRB arm (GSM8549833-841), and both add a compound rather than remove one.
GEO series GSE260742 (Gilan Lab, Monash), per-sample SOFT records: 158 samples, 419,824 characters, fetched 2026-09-23 · NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus 2026What this evidence cannot show
BOUNDED BY ONE ARCHIVE AND BY A NAME LIST, AND BOTH BOUNDS ARE NAMED IN THE CLAIM. No PubMed query was run and no other GEO series was searched, so this says GSE260742 cannot answer the question and NOT that no washout experiment exists - the wider claim is unbounded and is not made. The name list is the instrument here, as this project's rule for unnamed elements requires, and a deposit that describes a washout only in a protocol sentence using none of these fifteen strings would be missed. The search covers the per-sample records; the series-level record and the paper's methods were not searched for a washout experiment whose samples were not deposited.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
the bound behind clause 3's never-measured classification: zero of 158 records match any of fifteen withdrawal strings, and the series' only time-structured arms add drug rather than remove it
prediction 5 names the NTvKO arm as the relevant deposit for all three of its clauses; the withdrawal clause is not reachable from the series at all
the other unreachable clause of the same prediction