Oncofusion

start / graph / gene-atf4

Genestrong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.Q106-isr-stress-programme

ATF4 / CREB2 (P18848) - the hub this graph inferred from its targets and never wrote, and its own transcript does not move under either menin inhibitor

also called ATF4 · CREB2 · TXREB · TAXREB67 · TCGGCF · cyclic AMP-dependent transcription factor ATF-4 · ATF4_HUMAN

ATF4 is the master switch a cell throws when it is starving or stressed, and this project concluded that menin-blocking drugs switch it off - by watching the genes ATF4 controls, never ATF4 itself. Measured directly, ATF4's own message barely moves while the genes it controls fall up to thirty-fold, which means the drug is not deleting the switch, it is stopping the switch being read.

The same thing, for a scientist

ATF4 (P18848, 351 aa, bZIP 278-341) is the master transcription factor of the integrated stress response. This graph named it 22 times and inferred an "ATF4 signature" collapse under two unrelated menin inhibitors entirely from downstream targets, with **no entry of its own**. Measured directly on a pre-registered panel [E1]: in RS4;11, **ATF4's own transcript moves 0 of 1 array probes and 0 of 4 RNA-seq line/day contrasts past 1 log2. Its largest excursion anywhere is -0.86** (VTP-50469 330 nM, day 7), against **CHAC1 -5.11 in the same samples**. This is not a detection failure - the single GPL570 ATF4 probe sits at **13.72 log2 RMA in DMSO, level with ACTB (13.68-14.14)**, and the RNA-seq baseline is 8.68 log2 CPM. **The entire upstream eIF2alpha module is flat as well**: EIF2AK3/PERK +0.32 array and -0.35 RNA-seq, EIF2AK4/GCN2 +0.12 and +0.10, EIF2AK1/HRI within 0.26, EIF2S1 (eIF2alpha itself) within 0.31 [E1]. So on transcript evidence the loss is of ATF4 **activity**, not ATF4 - which in the ISR is uORF-mediated and phospho-eIF2alpha-dependent, a mechanism a 3-prime-end RNA-seq assay is blind to even in principle. **The published record already says this and the graph read it too narrowly**: Jimenez 2021 states in its own abstract that **"menin inhibition similarly leads to loss of ATF4 and the ATF4-dependent transcriptional signature in MLL-rearranged B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia"** and that menin-dependent regulation of ATF4 is **"transcriptional and post-transcriptional"** [E2]. **And ATF4 is a dependency this graph cannot simply remove**: DepMap 26.06 gene effect **-0.7118 across 1,258 screens, 71.9% of lines below -0.5, leukaemia mean -0.8571** - deeper than MEN1 (-0.3616 / -0.5459) and DOT1L (-0.1474 / -0.3931) in the same release, while every downstream target whose fall the graph reads as the signature is a non-dependency [E3]. ATF4 loss also **delays MLL-AF9 leukaemogenesis in mouse** [E4], and mitochondrial-ISR ATF4 **activation** is a published therapeutic vulnerability in KMT2A-r AML [E5] - two results that point in opposite therapeutic directions.

What it looks like
Cyclic AMP-dependent transcription factor ATF-4351 aa
bZIP (basic leucine zipper)bZIP (basic leucine zipper) · residues 278–3410100200300
loading AF-P18848-F1…
AlphaFold AF-P18848-F1 ↗
colourshape

This is a prediction, not a measurement. No one has seen this protein in this shape. The colours say how much the software trusts itself, and that is worth reading before anything else — the orange stretches are places the model is effectively saying this part has no fixed shape.

very high (90+)confident (70–90)low (50–70)very low (<50)
I have never read one of these pictures before

A protein is one long chain of amino acids that folds up. The ribbon traces that chain from one end to the other; it is not a wire, it is a simplification of where the backbone runs. Drag to rotate, scroll to zoom.

Domains are the stretches of chain that do a particular job, and they are what the coloured blocks above the picture mark out. Click one and the view flies to it. In this project the important question about any domain is usually whether the fusion still has it — the labels say lost where it does not.

Anything in yellow sticks is a bound small molecule, which is usually the drug.

Go deeper
The measurement, every arm, with the baseline beside every null

Panel frozen in panel-preregistration.json before any value was read. Every ATF4 row the two datasets contain 1:

datasetcellarmDMSO baselineATF4 log2FC
GSE63664 array, probe 200779_atRS4;11MI-2-2 10 uM, 6 d13.72 log2 RMA-0.16 (Welch p 0.015)
GSE63664 arrayRS4;11EPZ00477713.72-0.03
GSE63664 arraySEMMI-2-213.78-0.22
GSE63664 arrayREH (KMT2A wild type)MI-2-213.66+0.07
GSE127506 RNA-seqRS4;11 d2VTP-50469 330 nM8.03 log2 CPM-0.51
GSE127506 RNA-seqRS4;11 d7VTP-50469 330 nM8.68-0.86
GSE127506 RNA-seqRS4;11 d7EPZ5676 1 uM8.68-0.87
GSE127506 RNA-seqMOLM13 d7VTP-504698.41-0.42

Nothing reaches 1 log2. The maximum is -0.86. In the same RS4;11 day-7 samples CHAC1 is -5.11, STC2 -4.40, TRIB3 -3.10, ATF5 -2.43. The dynamic range between ATF4 and its most-responsive target is 4.25 log2, about nineteen-fold.

The -0.16 array value is nominally significant (p = 0.015) and biologically nil. It is worth stating plainly because a p-value on a 0.16 log2 change in a gene expressed at the ceiling is exactly the kind of number that becomes "ATF4 declines" in a later sentence.

There is ONE ATF4 probe on GPL570, so the multi-probe agreement that makes the ATF5 result persuasive is not available here. That is a genuine limit and it is recorded in the caveat rather than papered over.

Why a flat transcript is the informative answer, and what it cannot establish

ATF4 is the canonical uORF-regulated mRNA. Its 5-prime leader carries inhibitory upstream open reading frames; under unstressed conditions scanning ribosomes initiate at the uORF and ATF4 protein is not made, and phosphorylation of eIF2alpha by one of the four eIF2alpha kinases lowers initiation, allows the uORF to be bypassed and raises ATF4 protein with no change in ATF4 mRNA 6. So the observation "targets down 5 log2, ATF4 mRNA flat" is the transcriptional shadow of a translationally controlled factor, and it is compatible with ATF4 protein having fallen a great deal.

What this means for the graph's wording. The phrase already in the corpus - "loss of the integrated stress response / ATF4 output" - is correct as a description of output and wrong if read as a cause. Nothing in either dataset shows the ISR being switched off upstream. What the datasets show is that the ISR's transcriptional output is gone.

And what these data CANNOT establish. They cannot show that translational control is the mechanism. A flat mRNA with collapsed targets is equally consistent with:

  1. loss of ATF4 protein via translational control (the ISR mechanism);
  2. loss of ATF4 protein via increased degradation - ATF4 is an SCF(betaTrCP) substrate and its stability is p300-modulated 7;
  3. ATF4 protein intact but its co-activator or chromatin access lost, which is the reading most specific to this system given that the perturbation is a chromatin-complex inhibitor;
  4. the targets falling for a reason that has nothing to do with ATF4 at all.

3-prime-end RNA-seq quantifies one window near the polyadenylation site. For a gene whose regulation lives in the 5-prime leader, the assay cannot see the regulated feature even in principle. This is the sharpest single caveat on the entry and it applies to the whole ISR panel.

The upstream kinases are flat too, which narrows it

All four human eIF2alpha kinases plus the substrate, in RS4;11 1:

geneproteinarray DMSO / MI-2-2RNA-seq d7 DMSO / VTP-50469
EIF2AK1HRI10.72 / -0.077.76 / +0.26
EIF2AK2PKR11.38 / +0.205.62 / -1.88 (sign-flips to +1.40 at d2; see caveat)
EIF2AK3PERK8.98 / +0.324.80 / -0.35
EIF2AK4GCN28.96 / +0.127.21 / +0.10
EIF2S1eIF2alpha10.98 / -0.127.61 / -0.14

Four of the five are flat on both platforms. EIF2AK2/PKR is the only excursion and it is incoherent: -1.88 at day 7 but +1.40 at day 2 in the same line and arm, and +0.20 on a well-expressed array probe. A sign flip between adjacent timepoints on a low-baseline gene is noise, not a result, and it is reported here rather than dropped because dropping it would make the panel look cleaner than it is.

What this does and does not buy. A kinase's mRNA is a weak proxy for a kinase's activity, which is post-translational - PERK and GCN2 are activated by dimerisation and autophosphorylation, not by transcription. So a flat kinase transcript bounds the transcriptional response and says nothing about signalling. The honest statement is: there is no transcriptional evidence that any eIF2alpha-kinase arm is being engaged or disengaged, and the phospho-eIF2alpha measurement that would decide it has never been made under a menin inhibitor in any cell. That measurement is the experiment exp-phospho-eif2alpha-and-atf4-protein-under-vtp-50469-in-rs4-11.

The other UPR branches are a clean specificity control and they behave. XBP1 -1.31, ATF6 +0.14, ERN1/IRE1 -0.38, HSPA5/BiP -0.23, EDEM1 -0.72 at RS4;11 d7 1 - i.e. the IRE1 and ATF6 arms do not move while the ATF4 output arm falls 1.4 to 5.1 log2. That matches the specificity Mungrue established for CHAC1 - activated by ATF4-ATF3-CHOP and not by parallel XBP1 or ATF6 pathways 8. Two independent lines agreeing on which branch is involved is the strongest thing in this entry.

The published record is broader than this graph recorded, and this is a correction

The corpus entry that generated this beat says the menin-ATF4 paper "is about a different fusion cancer entirely". Read the abstract of PMID 33741715 and it is not 2:

"Moreover, we find that menin inhibition similarly leads to loss of ATF4 and the ATF4-dependent transcriptional signature in MLL-rearranged B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, extending our findings to another cancer in which menin serves an oncogenic role."

So a published menin-inhibition experiment showing loss of the ATF4 signature in MLL-rearranged B-ALL - the index disease class of this project - already existed, and my transcript measurement independently reproduces its transcriptional half in RS4;11 from public data, which is a genuine corroboration rather than a new finding.

The same abstract also anticipates the mechanism question and answers it the same way. It reports an EWS-FLI1 binding site at the ATF4 promoter, i.e. direct transcriptional activation by that fusion, and then says explicitly that "menin-dependent regulation of ATF4 is mediated by transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms". The post-transcriptional clause is the one this beat's data support.

What is NOT in that paper and is therefore still open: which post-transcriptional mechanism; whether phospho-eIF2alpha changes; whether any of it holds in KMT2A::AFF1 specifically as opposed to the MLL-rearranged B-ALL lines the paper used (it does not name them in the abstract, and this beat did not obtain the full text); and whether ATF4 protein falls in RS4;11 under VTP-50469 at all. Rule 73 clause: the strongest arm of this paper is in Ewing sarcoma, a non-haematopoietic soft-tissue sarcoma driven by an unrelated fusion. The B-ALL extension is one paragraph of an abstract.

ATF4 is a near-pan-essential dependency and its output genes are not - which inverts the drug argument

DepMap 26.06 through Open Targets, release read back from meta{dataVersion} 3:

genescreensmean gene effect% lines < -0.5leukaemia mean
ATF41,258-0.711871.9%-0.8571
MEN1 (reference)1,258-0.361628.9%-0.5459
DOT1L (reference)1,257-0.147412.1%-0.3931
EIF2AK4 / GCN21,258-0.11689.9%-0.1045
DDIT3 / CHOP1,258-0.15572.5%-0.0742
ATF51,257-0.17271.0%-0.1809
EIF2AK3 / PERK1,257-0.04241.3%-0.0924
CHAC11,257+0.01330.4%+0.0178
TRIB31,258+0.09370.0%+0.0908
SESN21,258-0.01990.2%-0.0317
STC21,258+0.05930.0%+0.0399
ATF31,258+0.05380.0%+0.1022
GAPDH (positive control)1,258-1.541699.2%-1.7465

Two things follow and they cut in opposite directions.

  1. ATF4 is required by most cancer cell lines, more deeply than menin is. So "the menin inhibitor works by removing ATF4 output" has to explain why removing something cells need does not simply kill everything - and why the wild-type line REH, which expresses ATF4 at 13.66, is unaffected by the compound 1. The fusion-selectivity of the response cannot be an ATF4 property, because ATF4 is not a fusion-selective dependency.
  2. None of the genes whose fall constitutes the observed signature is itself a dependency. CHAC1, TRIB3, STC2 and ATF3 are all at or above zero. The signature is a readout, not a mechanism of killing - the graph should not reason from "CHAC1 falls 5 log2" to "CHAC1 loss contributes to the drug's effect", and one entry's phrasing is close to that inference.

Rule 84 clause, since this is a set of gene-level ranks: no proportion is claimed here and no median-split tally is reported. Every figure is an absolute gene effect with its own screen count, and screen counts differ per gene by design (rule 83).

Localisation: a real subnuclear compartment, and it is conditional

UniProt P18848 carries five subcellular-location statements, and per-location evidence codes were read individually rather than as a flattened set 7:

locationcodecitation
NucleusECO:0000269 x4PubMed 16682973, 22974638, 23123191, 31444471
Nucleus speckleECO:0000269PubMed 16219772
CytoplasmECO:0000250 (by similarity, rat Q9ES19)-
Cell membraneECO:0000250 (by similarity)-
CentrosomeECO:0000269PubMed 20873783

Rule 91 check: the speckle paper was opened, and it is genuinely about ATF4 - but the observation is conditional. Lassot 2005 reports that ATF4 lacking its p300-binding domain "is no more stabilized by p300 nor recruited into nuclear speckles" 7. The speckle pool is therefore a p300-recruitment-dependent observation in a transfection system, not a demonstration that endogenous ATF4 resides in speckles at steady state. It is recorded as "conditional on p300 binding", and no constitutive speckle residence is claimed.

Why this is more than a detail in this graph. Nuclear speckles are a recurring compartment here - localization-nuclear-speckles-kmt2a-r and localization-ell-cajal-bodies-versus-speckles-and-the-mll-ell-disruption exist, and AFF1 and AFF4 speckle residence is a live topic. So the ISR hub and the fusion's elongation partners have a candidate shared compartment, mediated by the same acetyltransferase (gene-ep300, gene-crebbp). No co-localisation with any KMT2A fusion has ever been imaged, and no ATF4 subnuclear experiment exists in any KMT2A-rearranged cell - that is the bounded absence, and it is a specific, cheap experiment rather than a gap.

Identifier traps on this symbol, measured as ID sets

Rule 88 first: no row for ATF4, CREB2, CHAC1, TRIB3, SGK1, SGK, DDIT3, CHOP, PERK, GCN2, GADD34, IKZF3 or Aiolos exists in data/symbol-collisions.json (157 collision rows read 2026-09-22). These are new measurements, not rediscoveries.

PubMed ID sets, compared as sets 9:

canonicalaliascanonical nalias nshared idsJaccard
ATF4CREB25,480145360.0064
ATF4TAXREB675,480420.0004
ATF4TXREB5,480100.0000
ATF4TCGGCF5,48000-

Two consequences. (a) CREB2[tiab] reaches 145 records of which only 36 also mention ATF4 - the rest are largely the Aplysia CREB2 repressor and historical uses of CREB2 for a different human bZIP, so widening an ATF4 query with CREB2 imports off-topic records rather than recovering missed ones; fusion-scoped, CREB2 AND (KMT2A OR MLL OR ...) returns 0 with a non-empty querytranslation and "No items found.", so nothing was missed. (b) TCGGCF returns zero records in all of PubMed - a synonym in the brief's alias list that is not a usable search token at all.

The accession side is clean: gene_exact:ATF4 AND organism_id:9606 AND reviewed:true returns exactly one reviewed record, P18848, ATF4_HUMAN, 351 aa, "Cyclic AMP-dependent transcription factor ATF-4", re-fetched alone and the name, length and primary symbol compared back 7. Rule 62 is NOT clean for DDIT3 in the same panel - that query returns two reviewed human records - see gene-ddit3.

Bounded absence: what has never been asked

PubMed esearch, 2026-09-22, every querytranslation read back from the response 9. Fusion-scoped operand list: KMT2A[tiab] OR MLL[tiab] OR "MLL-AF4"[tiab] OR "KMT2A::AFF1"[tiab] OR "t(4;11)"[tiab] OR AFF1[tiab] OR "MLL-rearranged"[tiab] OR "KMT2A-rearranged"[tiab]. Cytogenetic terms quoted per rule 95; one tag per term per rule 94.

querynverdict
ATF4[tiab] AND the fusion list6all six title-read; see below
ATF4[tiab] AND the menin-drug name list1PMID 33741715 only
menin[tiab] AND ATF4[tiab] (control)1PMID 33741715 only - reproduces the prior entry's count exactly
CREB2[tiab] AND the fusion list0non-empty translation, "No items found."

The six fusion-scoped records, every title read: PMID 42350371 (mitochondrial ISR / MCL-1 in KMT2A-r AML), 34936448 (ATF4 loss delays MLL-AF9 leukaemogenesis), 33741715 (menin/EWS-FLI1 ATF4), 37496439 (DNAJC10 / PERK-eIF2alpha-ATF4 in MLL-AF9 LSC), 40640087 (MLL1 in cochlear hair cells - off-beat), 41795204 (placental allergy prediction - off-beat, matched on an unrelated token).

So the real bound is: four on-topic papers exist, one of them names a menin inhibitor, and NONE measures ATF4 protein or phospho-eIF2alpha under a menin inhibitor in a KMT2A::AFF1 cell. Rule 80 clause: this zero is bounded by titles and abstracts only; a western blot in a supporting figure would be invisible to it, and for a protein-level ISR measurement that is exactly where it would live.

Facts and figures
uniprotP18848
length AA351
entry nameATF4_HUMAN
protein nameCyclic AMP-dependent transcription factor ATF-4
ensembl gene IDENSG00000128272
PDB noteUniProt P18848 cross-references exactly two PDB entries and NEITHER was fetched. No chain, resolution, residue range or interface is claimed from them.
alphafold IDAF-P18848-F1
accession resolutionResolved live 2026-09-22: gene_exact:ATF4 AND organism_id:9606 AND reviewed:true returns EXACTLY ONE reviewed row - P18848, ATF4_HUMAN, gene_primary ATF4, synonyms CREB2 and TXREB, 351 aa, recommended name 'Cyclic AMP-dependent transcription factor ATF-4'. The accession was then re-fetched alone and the protein name, length and primary symbol compared back: PASS. Rule 62 satisfied for this symbol; it is NOT satisfied for DDIT3 in the same panel.
localizationNUCLEAR, established. UniProt P18848 carries four ECO:0000269 Nucleus statements (PubMed 16682973, 22974638, 23123191, 31444471). Also annotated: centrosome/pericentriolar (ECO:0000269, PubMed 20873783, via NEK6), and cytoplasm plus cell membrane as ECO:0000250 BY SIMILARITY to rat Q9ES19 - recorded as uncoded inferences, not measurements. No localisation experiment on ATF4 has been performed in any KMT2A-rearranged cell.
subnuclear localizationNUCLEAR SPECKLE, and it is CONDITIONAL - do not copy this as a flat assignment. UniProt's only subnuclear statement is Nucleus speckle, ECO:0000269 from PubMed 16219772, and that paper was opened per rule 91: it reports that ATF4 lacking its p300-binding domain 'is no more stabilized by p300 nor recruited into nuclear speckles', in a transfection system. So the speckle pool is p300-recruitment-dependent and demonstrated on overexpressed protein. NOTHING places endogenous ATF4 in a speckle at steady state, and NOTHING has co-localised ATF4 with any KMT2A fusion. The graph holds localization-nuclear-speckles-kmt2a-r and a live AFF1/AFF4 speckle question, so a shared p300-dependent compartment is a specific, cheap, unperformed experiment rather than a gap.
cell typeRS4;11 (infant t(4;11) KMT2A::AFF1 B-ALL) and SEM (t(4;11) KMT2A::AFF1 B-ALL) as the responsive lines, REH (KMT2A wild-type ETV6::RUNX1 B-ALL) as the unresponsive control, and MOLM13 (KMT2A::MLLT3 AML) - all four measured here [E1]. Mouse adult bone-marrow HSCs and LSK/MLL-AF9 leukaemia cells in PMID 34936448. NO primary infant patient sample and NO normal human pro-B cell has ever been assayed for ATF4 in this context.
cell stateMeasured in the drug-treated, growth-arrested state at day 6-7 of continuous menin-inhibitor or DOT1L-inhibitor exposure - i.e. the differentiation-and-arrest state a menin inhibitor produces, not a steady proliferative state. In mouse, the relevant states are HSC self-renewal and quiescence: ATF4 deficiency expands phenotypic HSCs while destroying their repopulating and self-renewal capacity, an aging-like state (PMID 34936448). The ISR is BY DEFINITION a cell-state programme - amino-acid limitation, ER load, haem deficiency, mitochondrial dysfunction - and no menin-inhibitor experiment has controlled the nutrient state of the medium, so an amino-acid-dependent readout was measured under uncontrolled amino-acid supply.
epigenetic readoutATF4 has no writer, eraser or reader activity of its own. Its epigenetic connection here is INDIRECT and is exactly what makes the entry interesting: (a) ATF4 stability and speckle recruitment are controlled by the acetyltransferase p300 independently of p300 catalytic activity (PMID 16219772), tying it to gene-ep300 and gene-crebbp; (b) the ATF4 output collapse is reproduced almost exactly by EPZ5676, a DOT1L inhibitor that removes H3K79me2/me3 - CHAC1 -5.03 versus -5.11, ATF5 -2.36 versus -2.43, TRIB3 -3.07 versus -3.10 at RS4;11 day 7 - so the programme is downstream of the fusion's H3K79 methylation-dependent elongation output and not of the menin interface specifically. NO H3K4, H3K79 or H3K27 measurement at the ATF4 locus exists in any KMT2A-rearranged cell; that is a bounded absence, not a claim.
shown for fusionMEASURED in KMT2A::AFF1 (RS4;11 and SEM, this beat, transcript only) and in KMT2A::MLLT3 (MOLM13, transcript only), with KMT2A wild-type REH as an internal negative control. A FUNCTIONAL requirement is shown only in murine MLL-AF9 (leukaemogenesis delayed, PMID 34936448) and a menin-inhibitor-dependent signature loss is reported for unnamed MLL-rearranged B-ALL lines (PMID 33741715, abstract). NOTHING at the protein level in any KMT2A::AFF1 cell; no ATF4 protein, no phospho-eIF2alpha, no ChIP, no localisation.
absence classliterature-absence-bounded
absence class noteRECLASSIFIED 2026-09-23 (cycle 76). This field held free text, which `scripts/check-absence-class.py` rejects; the prose is preserved here VERBATIM and unsummarised because it is more informative than the token that replaced it. Token chosen: literature-absence-bounded - the two-part prose says MEASURED-AND-<something> for the data arm and BOUNDED-UNPUBLISHED for the prose arm. The data arm is a RESULT, not an absence; the absence is the bounded literature, and the bound's own limits (titles and abstracts only, per rule 80) are stated in the preserved prose. ORIGINAL absence_class, verbatim: «MEASURED-AND-NULL for the transcript (the assay ran, the gene is at the expression ceiling, the answer is no movement), and BOUNDED-UNPUBLISHED for the protein (4 on-topic papers exist in a fusion-scoped PubMed query, 1 names a menin inhibitor, 0 measure ATF4 protein or phospho-eIF2alpha under a menin inhibitor in a KMT2A::AFF1 cell; titles and abstracts only, supporting figures not searched).»
PDB IDS
[
  "1CI6",
  "9TFU"
]
domains
[
  {
    "name": "bZIP (basic leucine zipper)",
    "start": 278,
    "end": 341
  }
]
the answer
{
  "question": "Does ATF4's own transcript move under either menin inhibitor in RS4;11?",
  "answer": "NO. Maximum excursion anywhere is -0.86 log2 (VTP-50469 330 nM, RS4;11 day 7). 0 of 1 array probes and 0 of 4 RNA-seq line/day contrasts reach 1 log2.",
  "atf4_rs411_array_mi22_lfc": -0.16,
  "atf4_rs411_array_dmso_log2_rma": 13.72,
  "atf4_rs411_rnaseq_d7_vtp_lfc": -0.863,
  "atf4_rs411_rnaseq_d7_epz5676_lfc": -0.871,
  "atf4_rs411_rnaseq_d2_vtp_lfc": -0.512,
  "atf4_molm13_rnaseq_d7_vtp_lfc": -0.417,
  "atf4_reh_array_mi22_lfc": 0.07,
  "chac1_same_samples_vtp_lfc": -5.108,
  "dynamic_range_atf4_to_chac1_log2": 4.25,
  "so_what": "This is loss of ATF4 ACTIVITY, not loss of ATF4. In the ISR that is uORF-mediated and phospho-eIF2alpha-dependent. The graph's phrase 'loss of the integrated stress response' describes an OUTPUT, not a cause - and a 3-prime-end RNA-seq assay cannot see the 5-prime leader where the cause would live.",
  "what_would_settle_it": "exp-phospho-eif2alpha-and-atf4-protein-under-vtp-50469-in-rs4-11"
}
upstream kinase transcripts rs411
{
  "EIF2AK1_HRI": "array MI-2-2 -0.07 (DMSO 10.72); RNA-seq d7 VTP +0.26 (DMSO 7.76) - FLAT",
  "EIF2AK2_PKR": "array MI-2-2 +0.20 (DMSO 11.38); RNA-seq d7 VTP -1.88 but d2 VTP +1.40 - SIGN-FLIPS, treated as noise",
  "EIF2AK3_PERK": "array MI-2-2 +0.32 (DMSO 8.98); RNA-seq d7 VTP -0.35 (DMSO 4.80) - FLAT",
  "EIF2AK4_GCN2": "array MI-2-2 +0.12 (DMSO 8.96); RNA-seq d7 VTP +0.10 (DMSO 7.21) - FLAT",
  "EIF2S1_eIF2alpha": "array MI-2-2 -0.12 (DMSO 10.98); RNA-seq d7 VTP -0.14 - FLAT",
  "bound_not_measurement": "A kinase mRNA is a weak proxy for kinase ACTIVITY, which is post-translational. These values bound the TRANSCRIPTIONAL response and say nothing about eIF2alpha phosphorylation."
}
essentiality
{
  "depmap_release": "26.06 (dataVersion year 26 month 06, read back from meta{dataVersion})",
  "depmap_screens": 1258,
  "chronos_mean": -0.7118,
  "chronos_median": -0.7106,
  "pct_lines_below_minus_0_5": 71.9,
  "leukaemia_screens": 57,
  "leukaemia_mean_gene_effect": -0.8571,
  "depmap_common_essential": "not asserted - the Open Targets field does not carry DepMap's own common-essential flag, and it is not inferred here from the mean",
  "reference_comparison": "deeper than MEN1 (-0.3616 mean, -0.5459 leukaemia) and DOT1L (-0.1474, -0.3931) in the same release",
  "mouse_ko": "Atf4-deficient mice: aging-like attrition of adult HSCs, defective repopulation and self-renewal, myeloid bias; MLL-AF9 leukaemogenesis significantly delayed (PMID 34936448)"
}
identifier traps
{
  "registry_status": "NOT in data/symbol-collisions.json as of 2026-09-22 (157 collision rows read). New measurement, not a rediscovery.",
  "CREB2": "145 PubMed records, 36 shared with ATF4's 5,480 (Jaccard 0.0064). Largely the Aplysia CREB2 repressor and historical use of CREB2 for a different human bZIP. Fusion-scoped CREB2 returns 0 with a valid querytranslation, so nothing was missed by the canonical query.",
  "TCGGCF": "ZERO records in all of PubMed. Not a usable search token; it appears in alias lists and reaches nothing.",
  "TXREB": "1 record, 0 shared with ATF4.",
  "TAXREB67": "4 records, 2 shared with ATF4.",
  "uniprot": "clean - exactly one reviewed human record, name and length read back"
}
How this could bite us back
  • ATF4 is required by 72% of cancer cell lines at a gene effect of -0.71 and by normal haematopoietic stem cells. A drug that lowers ATF4 output is therefore operating on a housekeeping axis in an infant whose entire marrow reserve is ahead of them - and ATF4-deficient mouse HSCs show aging-like attrition. Any attempt to deepen the ISR arm pharmacologically inherits that toxicity.
  • The collapse is reproduced almost exactly by a DOT1L inhibitor (CHAC1 -5.03 vs -5.11), so if a clinical combination of menin and DOT1L inhibition is ever tried, this axis is already saturated by either agent alone and the combination buys nothing on it - while the HOX/MEIS arm, where the two compounds DO differ by 2.6-3.8 log2, is where a combination could act.
  • ATF4 activation - not loss - is the published therapeutic lever in KMT2A-r AML via the DELE1/HRI mitochondrial ISR plus MCL-1 inhibition. A menin inhibitor moves this axis the other way, so the two strategies may be mutually antagonistic and nobody has tested the combination in either direction.
  • CHAC1, the largest effect in the whole signature, degrades glutathione and is pro-apoptotic. Losing it is predicted to RAISE glutathione and could blunt any co-administered agent that depends on oxidative or ferroptotic stress - a menin inhibitor may be quietly protecting the cell against a partner drug.
  • If the mechanism is translational rather than transcriptional, then resistance does not require a MEN1 mutation. Anything that restores eIF2alpha phosphorylation or bypasses the uORF - an ISR-activating stress, a GADD34 loss, a nutrient-poor niche - could restore ATF4 output while the drug remains fully bound to menin, and nothing in a MEN1 sequencing panel would see it.
Still open
  1. Does ATF4 PROTEIN fall in RS4;11 under VTP-50469 at 330 nM by day 7, and does phospho-eIF2alpha change? This is one western blot on cells two laboratories already grow, and it converts every 'ATF4 output' sentence in this graph from an inference into a measurement.
  2. Is the 0.86 log2 fall at day 7 the transcriptional component Jimenez 2021 reports, or noise? A time course at 6, 12 and 24 hours would separate a small direct transcriptional effect from a late consequence of arrest; both public datasets sample only day 2 and day 7, which are far too late.
  3. Does ATF4 occupy the promoters of CHAC1, TRIB3, ATF5 and STC2 in RS4;11, and does that occupancy change under a menin inhibitor? Without an ATF4 ChIP the 'ATF4 signature' remains a gene-list argument.
  4. Is ATF4 in nuclear speckles in a KMT2A-rearranged cell, and does it share that compartment with AFF1 or AFF4? The only speckle evidence is p300-dependent and from overexpression, and this graph already has an open AFF1/AFF4 speckle question.
  5. Are the MLL-rearranged B-ALL lines in PMID 33741715 KMT2A::AFF1, and did that paper measure ATF4 mRNA as well as protein? The full text would settle whether this beat's transcript null contradicts them or completes them.
Every source behind this entry (9)
  1. E1established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.dataset

    In RS4;11, ATF4's own transcript moves 0 of 1 GPL570 probes and 0 of 4 RNA-seq line/day contrasts past 1 log2 under either menin inhibitor (largest excursion -0.86, VTP-50469 330 nM day 7) while CHAC1 falls 5.11 log2 in the same samples; ATF4 is expressed at 13.72 log2 RMA in DMSO, level with ACTB, so the null is a measurement and not a detection failure; and EIF2AK1, EIF2AK3, EIF2AK4 and EIF2S1 are flat on both platforms.

    What this evidence cannot show

    This is a count inside two named public cohorts computed by a script whose panel was frozen first, which is why it is graded established - but it is established ONLY as a statement about mRNA in these samples. THE GENERALISATION IS NOT: a flat transcript does not establish that ATF4 protein is intact, and 3-prime-end RNA-seq cannot see the 5-prime leader where ATF4's regulation lives. ONE PROBE: GPL570 carries a single ATF4 probe, so the multi-probe corroboration available for ATF5 is not available here. n=2 DMSO arrays in RS4;11 because the submitter excluded RS411-DMSO-1 for QC, so array Welch p-values there rest on 2 vs 3 and are indicative. MI-2-2 at 10 uM is a weak tool compound that does not collapse MEIS1/MEF2C/PBX3 in this dataset, so its arm is not a clean menin-inhibition arm.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The paper this graph cites for the menin-ATF4 link reports that menin inhibition leads to LOSS OF ATF4 in MLL-rearranged B-ALL, and attributes menin-dependent regulation of ATF4 to transcriptional AS WELL AS post-transcriptional mechanisms. If a transcriptional component exists and this dataset does not see it, the most likely explanations are that RS4;11 is not one of the lines that paper used, that day 7 is the wrong window, or that a 0.86 log2 fall is the transcriptional component and 1.0 log2 is an arbitrary threshold that excludes it. The third reading is the most uncomfortable and cannot be excluded: -0.86 is a 1.8-fold fall. Jimenez JA et al. 2021
  2. E2strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    Jimenez 2021 reports that inhibition of either EWS-FLI1 or menin causes loss of ATF4 and of ATF4-dependent transcription in Ewing sarcoma, identifies an EWS-FLI1 binding site at the ATF4 promoter, states that menin-dependent regulation of ATF4 is mediated by transcriptional AND post-transcriptional mechanisms, and reports that menin inhibition similarly causes loss of ATF4 and the ATF4-dependent signature in MLL-rearranged B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

    EWS-FLI1 and Menin Converge to Regulate ATF4 Activity in Ewing Sarcoma. · Jimenez JA, Apfelbaum AA, Hawkins AG, Svoboda LK, et al. · Molecular Cancer Research 2021
    What this evidence cannot show

    ABSTRACT ONLY - the full text was not obtained, so the B-ALL experiment's cell lines, menin inhibitor, dose, duration and readout are unknown to this entry, and 'loss of ATF4' is not resolved into mRNA, protein or activity for the B-ALL arm. RULE 73: the paper's primary system is Ewing sarcoma, a non-haematopoietic soft-tissue sarcoma driven by an unrelated fusion; the MLL-rearranged B-ALL result is an extension reported in one sentence. The graph already cites this paper twice, so the conclusion is partly written down elsewhere (rule 82) - what is new here is that the B-ALL clause exists and that a prior entry characterised the paper as being about a different cancer entirely.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Menin's role in this paper is scaffold-like and indirect, and the Ewing serine-biosynthesis phenotype it centres on does not reproduce cleanly in the KMT2A datasets measured here: PHGDH falls 3.24 log2 and PSAT1 2.40 under VTP-50469 in RS4;11, but PHGDH is essentially flat on the array under MI-2-2 (-0.44) and both are flat in MOLM13 (-0.20, -0.57). A serine-arm collapse that appears in one line, one compound and one platform is weaker than the paper's framing would predict. NCBI GEO, re-analysed here 2026
  3. E3established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.database

    In DepMap release 26.06, ATF4 has a mean CRISPR gene effect of -0.7118 across 1,258 screens with 71.9% of lines below -0.5 and a leukaemia mean of -0.8571, deeper than MEN1 (-0.3616, 28.9%, leukaemia -0.5459) and DOT1L (-0.1474, 12.1%, leukaemia -0.3931), while CHAC1 (+0.0133), TRIB3 (+0.0937), STC2 (+0.0593), ATF3 (+0.0538) and SESN2 (-0.0199) are not dependencies in any lineage.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Release recorded per rule 83 (dataVersion year 26 month 06, read back in the same session, not a fetch date), and screen counts are gene-specific by design - ATF4 1,258, DOT1L 1,257, IKZF3 1,253 - so no corpus-wide denominator is implied. The 57 leukaemia screens are identified by a substring match on diseaseFromSource ('leukemia', 'leukaemia', 'lymphoblastic', 'myeloid') and their DepMap ids are persisted in the analysis results per rule 90. A CRISPR knockout gene effect measures loss of the gene, which is NOT what a menin inhibitor does to ATF4 in these data - the comparison is deliberately a contrast, not a model of the drug.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • A deep pan-lineage gene effect is exactly what a gene required for basic proteostasis looks like, and it therefore cannot distinguish an oncogenic ATF4 requirement from a housekeeping one. ATF4 knockout mice are viable but severely anaemic and ATF4 is required for normal haematopoietic stem cell function, so the DepMap signal is at least partly generic essentiality - which weakens rather than strengthens any argument that ATF4 is a fusion-specific node. Sun Y et al. 2021
  4. E4strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    In mouse, ATF4 deficiency causes aging-like functional attrition of adult haematopoietic stem cells with defective repopulating and self-renewal capacity and myeloid bias, and significantly delays leukaemogenesis in the MLL-AF9-induced leukaemia model, acting through HIF1alpha and p16Ink4a.

    Loss of ATF4 leads to functional aging-like attrition of adult hematopoietic stem cells. · Sun Y, Lin X, Liu B, Zhang Y, et al. · Science Advances 2021
    What this evidence cannot show

    MURINE, and the fusion is MLL-AF9 - a myeloid model with a different 3-prime partner from the index KMT2A::AFF1 B-lineage disease (rule 73). 'Significantly delayed' leukaemogenesis is a latency result, not abrogation, so ATF4 is a modifier and not a requirement in that model. Germline/conditional deletion for the lifetime of the experiment is not comparable to days of pharmacological output loss. Abstract read; the figures were not.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The same paper shows ATF4 loss cripples normal HSC function with an aging-like phenotype, so any therapeutic reading of the leukaemogenesis delay runs straight into on-target haematopoietic toxicity - and in a disease of infants, whose entire haematopoietic reserve is ahead of them, that is a more serious objection than in adult AML. Sun Y et al. 2021
  5. E5moderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.paper

    Inhibition of electron transport chain complex I activates the mitochondrial integrated stress response through DELE1 and the eIF2alpha kinase HRI, causing ATF4 activation, and this creates a synthetic-lethal vulnerability to MCL-1 inhibition in AML cell lines and patient-derived xenografts, in a paper framed on KMT2A-rearranged AML as the high-risk subtype of interest.

    Mitochondrial integrated stress response activation creates a therapeutic vulnerability to MCL-1 inhibition in acute myeloid leukemia. · Brakefield-Laird L, Budhraja A, Hall PM, Brewington D, et al. · Cell Death & Disease 2026
    What this evidence cannot show

    ABSTRACT ONLY. The KMT2A-r framing is in the abstract's opening and closing sentences; how many of the lines and PDX samples are actually KMT2A-rearranged is not stated there and was not checked, so 'in KMT2A-r AML' is the paper's framing and not a verified property of its panel. MYELOID, not B-lineage. 2026 publication, so it has had almost no independent replication. HRI/EIF2AK1 is the kinase here, and EIF2AK1's transcript is flat in both menin-inhibitor datasets - as expected, since kinase activation is post-translational.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • This result points the opposite way to the menin-inhibitor observation: here ATF4 ACTIVATION is the therapeutic lever, whereas the menin-inhibitor datasets show ATF4 OUTPUT collapsing. If both are true in KMT2A-r cells then a menin inhibitor and a mitochondrial-ISR-plus-MCL-1 strategy are antagonistic on the same axis, and combining them would be predicted to blunt one of them. Nobody has tested the combination. NCBI GEO, re-analysed here 2026
  6. E6established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.database

    PERK (EIF2AK3) and GCN2 (EIF2AK4) are metabolic-stress-sensing kinases that phosphorylate the alpha subunit of eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 in response to unfolded protein load and to low amino-acid availability respectively, and UniProt describes ATF4 as the master transcription factor of the integrated stress response acting downstream of that phosphorylation.

    What this evidence cannot show

    A database function line, curated from many primary papers, used here only for the textbook architecture of the pathway and not for any claim about this disease. RULE 91: the individual PubMed ids inside UniProt's function comment were not opened, so this is cited as a map rather than as a measurement. The uORF mechanism specifically is standard ISR biology stated in the same comment block; no single founding paper is cited for it here, and a reader wanting the primary source should be pointed at the ATF4 uORF literature rather than at this row.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Describing ATF4 as translationally controlled through a uORF is true of the canonical ISR and is not the only mode: ATF4 transcription is itself inducible, and in Ewing sarcoma a fusion oncoprotein binds the ATF4 promoter directly. So 'ATF4 is translationally controlled' must not be used to argue that ATF4 mRNA CANNOT move under a perturbation - it demonstrably can, in a fusion-driven cancer. Jimenez JA et al. 2021
  7. E7strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.database

    UniProt P18848 is the single reviewed human ATF4 record, 351 aa, with a bZIP domain at 278-341, synonyms CREB2 and TXREB, and five subcellular-location statements of which Nucleus speckle rests on ECO:0000269 from PubMed 16219772 - a paper that reports ATF4 recruitment into nuclear speckles as a p300-binding-dependent event, ATF4 stabilisation by p300 independent of p300 acetyltransferase activity, and ATF4 as an SCF(betaTrCP) substrate.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Resolved live 2026-09-22: gene_exact:ATF4 AND organism_id:9606 AND reviewed:true returns EXACTLY ONE record (rule 62 satisfied), and the accession was re-fetched alone with protein name, length and primary gene symbol compared back (rule 1). RULE 91 APPLIED: the speckle paper WAS opened and it is genuinely an ATF4 paper - but the speckle observation is conditional on the p300-binding domain and comes from a transfection/overexpression system, so no constitutive endogenous speckle residence is claimed. Cytoplasm and cell membrane are ECO:0000250 by similarity to rat Q9ES19 and are recorded as uncoded inferences, not measurements.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • A compartment seen only when a co-activator binding domain is intact, in transfected cells, is weak evidence of where endogenous ATF4 sits - and the same paper's central claim is about stability, not location, so the speckle panel is a supporting observation in a paper about something else. Rule 91's warning applies in its milder form: the citation is on-topic but is not the best possible source for this fact, and no better one was found. Lassot I et al. 2005
  8. E8strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    CHAC1 is activated by the ATF4-ATF3-CHOP arm of the unfolded protein response and specifically NOT by the parallel XBP1 or ATF6 pathways, established by siRNA and overexpression in human aortic endothelial cells, and CHAC1 overexpression enhances apoptosis while CHAC1 siRNA suppresses it.

    CHAC1/MGC4504 is a novel proapoptotic component of the unfolded protein response, downstream of the ATF4-ATF3-CHOP cascade. · Mungrue IN, Pagnon J, Kohannim O, Gargalovic PS, Lusis AJ · Journal of Immunology 182(1):466-76 2009
    What this evidence cannot show

    HUMAN AORTIC ENDOTHELIAL CELLS, with chemically induced UPR - not leukaemia, not a fusion, not a menin inhibitor. It is cited here for branch specificity, which is the transferable part, and the branch assignment is what the menin-inhibitor data independently agree with (ATF4 output down 1.4-5.1 log2, XBP1 -1.31, ATF6 +0.14 in RS4;11 d7). The graph already cites this paper once (rule 82); the new content is the agreement with the branch-specificity prediction in a KMT2A-rearranged cell.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The branch specificity was established with chemical UPR inducers in a vascular cell type. A menin inhibitor is not a UPR inducer and the direction is opposite - loss of output rather than induction - so the argument 'CHAC1 falls, therefore the ATF4-ATF3-CHOP branch is the one affected' is an inference from an induction experiment to a de-induction one, in a different lineage. Consistency is not proof of pathway identity. NCBI GEO, re-analysed here 2026
  9. E9established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.database

    PubMed contains 6 records for ATF4 jointly with any of eight KMT2A-fusion operands and exactly 1 for ATF4 jointly with a thirteen-name menin-inhibitor list, and the alias CREB2 reaches 145 records of which only 36 also mention ATF4 while TCGGCF reaches zero records in the whole index; the fusion-scoped CREB2 query returns a zero with a non-empty querytranslation and warninglist 'No items found.'

    What this evidence cannot show

    Rule 94 form used throughout (one [tiab] tag per term, never a parenthesised group carrying the tag); rule 95 observed (every cytogenetic term quoted, and "t(4;11)" translated correctly to "t 4 11"[Title/Abstract] returning 736 records as a control); rule 67 controls non-empty (menin AND ATF4 = 1, CHAC1 AND ATF4 = 66, KMT2A OR MLL = 7,685). Rule 80 clause: these zeros are bounded by TITLES AND ABSTRACTS ONLY and supporting figures were not searched, which matters here because an ATF4 western is exactly the kind of panel that never reaches an abstract. Drug name list: menin inhibitor / inhibitors / inhibition, revumenib, ziftomenib, VTP-50469, VTP50469, MI-2-2, MI-503, MI-538, bleximenib, enzomenib, SNDX-5613.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • A six-record fusion-scoped count is small enough that the operand list is doing most of the work, and two of the six are off-beat on title-check. Widening to MeSH, to the full text via Europe PMC, or to mouse-model vocabulary would very likely raise it; this graph's own rule 80 records a case where a mark measured in a figure was invisible to exactly this kind of query. The count should be read as a floor on what has been PUBLISHED PROMINENTLY, not on what has been measured. NCBI PubMed 2026
Connected to