Oncofusion

start / graph / hyp-cxcr4-function-is-a-hoxa-meis1-output-of-the-fusion

Hypothesisspeculative confidence 1 of 5: Our own inference or analogy. Not shown to be true.Q33-niche-protein-layer

CXCR4 function in KMT2A-rearranged blasts is an output of the fusion's own HOXA/MEIS1 program, so a menin inhibitor should switch off the niche axis without a CXCR4 antagonist

also called CXCR4 as a fusion output · menin inhibition and the niche axis

The leukaemia's central switch, which the drugs in this project turn off, also seems to control how well the leukaemia cell uses the marrow's hold-still signal. If that is right, those drugs are already doing part of the job a second niche-targeting drug is being proposed for.

The same thing, for a scientist

The claim is narrow and deliberately not a retention story. In RS4;11, a human KMT2A::AFF1 B-precursor line, separate knockdown of MEIS1, HOXA7, HOXA9 or HOXA10 each hampered the CXCR4/SDF-1 axis - reduced migration toward an SDF-1 gradient, lost SDF-1-augmented proliferation - with homing intact and colonisation slowed [E1]. Independently, MEIS1 drives CXCL12/CXCR4 signalling by transactivating SYTL1, which controls CXCR4 intracellular trafficking [E2]. Menin inhibition collapses HOXA9/MEIS1 in KMT2A-rearranged AML [E3]. The three together predict that a menin inhibitor reduces CXCR4 function in KMT2A-rearranged blasts, and nobody has measured it - zero papers name menin and CXCR4 together (`absence-cxcr4-axis-never-measured-under-menin-inhibition`). PRIOR: 0.55, and the reason it is not higher is [E4]: in murine MLL-AF9, Cxcr4 deletion eradicated leukaemia with marrow HOMING UNIMPAIRED and CXCL12 dispensable, the phenotype tracking to oxidative stress and differentiation. So even if CXCR4 is a fusion output, 'retention' is probably the wrong word for what it does, and this hypothesis is about the regulatory wiring, not about adhesion.

Go deeper
Why this is stated as wiring and not as retention

The tempting version of this hypothesis - fusion drives CXCR4, CXCR4 holds the blast in the niche, niche protects it from chemotherapy, so menin inhibition de-adheres it - is not supported by the strongest in vivo experiment available. In syngeneic murine MLL-AF9, Cxcr4 deletion eradicated leukaemia without impairing homing to bone marrow; the ligand CXCL12 was dispensable for leukaemia development in recipients; mutant-receptor experiments showed signalling is the requirement; and the phenotype was oxidative stress and differentiation in vivo 4. Two of the four links in the tempting chain fail there.

What survives, and what this entry claims, is the first link only: the blast's CXCR4 function is downstream of the fusion's HOXA/MEIS1 output. Whether the consequence is retention, redox, differentiation block or something else is a separate question that F2 and F4 deliberately score separately.

What makes it worth testing rather than merely plausible

Three things. It is cheap - F3 is a re-analysis of already-deposited human data and needs no wet work 5. It is decision-relevant - this graph holds a paediatric plerixafor trial, a CXCR4-antagonist analysis and a proposed antagonist experiment, and if menin inhibition already suppresses the axis then a combination is redundant at best and additively myelosuppressive at worst. It has a clean specificity control - F5 runs the identical readout in a non-KMT2A-rearranged line, which distinguishes a fusion-program output from a general drug effect, and no existing entry in this beat has such a control.

It also connects the niche layer to the graph's core rather than leaving it a parallel literature: the index-fusion experiment 1 is in RS4;11, and gene-hoxa9 and gene-meis1 are the two highest-degree downstream entries in this corpus.

Facts and figures
statementIn KMT2A-rearranged leukaemia the blast's CXCR4 function is an output of the fusion's own HOXA/MEIS1 transcriptional program - directly, or indirectly through MEIS1-driven SYTL1 control of CXCR4 trafficking - so pharmacological menin inhibition should reduce CXCR4-dependent function in these cells even though no experiment has ever measured it.
originliterature-gap
prior probability0.55
prior reasoningRaised above even odds by two converging and independent lines - a direct index-fusion knockdown result in RS4;11 [E1] and a named molecular intermediate in SYTL1 [E2] - and held down by [E4], in which Cxcr4 loss in murine MLL-AF9 left homing intact and CXCL12 dispensable, and by the fact that the menin-inhibitor step itself has never been tested in any system. A prior above 0.7 would not be defensible with zero direct measurements of the drug arm.
falsifier scoring noteEach falsifier names its cell type, its model system and a numeric kill criterion, so it can be scored without further interpretation. F3 is runnable on public data with no wet work and should be run first; F5 is the specificity control and no result from F1, F2 or F4 should be believed without it. The outcome of each falsifier, when run, must be written back into this entry - this project states many falsifiers and records few outcomes.
relationship to existing entriesDoes NOT duplicate mechanism-cxcl12-cxcr4-marrow-retention (which records the axis and its two contradictory MLL-AF9 arms), mechanism-niche-chemoprotection-kmt2a (which records that protection against menin inhibitors is unestablished at the level of stromal co-culture) or exp-stromal-coculture-menin-inhibitor-protection (which proposes a co-culture protection assay). Those ask whether the NICHE protects against a menin inhibitor. This asks the opposite-direction question: whether a menin inhibitor switches off the blast's ability to use the niche.
predictions
[
  "Menin inhibition in a KMT2A::AFF1 line reduces CXCL12-directed migration more than it reduces viability at the same exposure.",
  "SYTL1 moves with HOXA9/MEIS1 under menin inhibition in deposited RNA-seq, whether or not CXCR4 transcript does.",
  "The effect is absent or much smaller in a non-KMT2A-rearranged B-ALL line with low HOXA9/MEIS1.",
  "If the effect is real and functional, a menin inhibitor produces a transient early rise in circulating blasts in a PDX before marrow burden falls."
]
analyses
[
  "ana-cxcr4-under-menin-inhibition-geo-reanalysis"
]
experiments
[]
falsifiers
[
  "F1 - TRANSCRIPTIONAL ARM. Cell type: human KMT2A::AFF1 B-precursor ALL lines SEM and RS4;11. System: 7-day revumenib at a concentration verified in the same wells to reduce HOXA9 and MEIS1 transcript by at least 70% versus DMSO by RT-qPCR. Kill criterion: surface CXCR4 falls by LESS THAN 25% in geometric mean fluorescence intensity (anti-CXCR4 clone 12G5, unpermeabilised, isotype-subtracted) AND SYTL1 transcript falls by less than 25%, in 3 independent experiments. If the fusion's output program collapses by 70% and neither the receptor nor its trafficking partner moves by a quarter, CXCR4 is not an output of that program in the index fusion.",
  "F2 - FUNCTIONAL ARM, scored independently of F1 because the SYTL1 route can move function without moving transcript. Cell type: SEM and RS4;11. System: 5-micron transwell migration toward 100 ng/mL recombinant CXCL12 for 4 hours, after the same 7-day revumenib exposure as F1. Kill criterion: migration index is NOT reduced by at least 30% versus DMSO, in 3 independent experiments. F1 and F2 both failing kills the hypothesis outright; F1 failing while F2 succeeds relocates the mechanism to trafficking and the hypothesis survives in amended form.",
  "F3 - PUBLIC-DATA ARM, runnable this week with no bench work. Data: deposited human menin-inhibitor transcriptomes in KMT2A-rearranged AML, GSE281506 or an equivalent series carrying a menin-inhibitor-alone arm. Kill criterion: in the menin-inhibitor arm versus vehicle, HOXA9 and MEIS1 both fall with log2 fold change below -1 at adjusted p < 0.05 (confirming the perturbation worked) WHILE CXCR4 and SYTL1 both show absolute log2 fold change below 0.3 at adjusted p > 0.05. That is a scoreable negative in a system where the drug demonstrably did its job.",
  "F4 - IN VIVO MOBILISATION PREDICTION. Cell type: a KMT2A::AFF1 patient-derived xenograft. System: NSG mice at established leukaemic burden, revumenib at a published efficacious dose, peripheral blood sampled at 0, 24, 48 and 72 hours. Kill criterion: circulating human CD19+/CD45+ blasts per microlitre show LESS THAN a 2-fold rise over vehicle at every timepoint within 72 hours, before any fall in marrow burden. No early egress means menin inhibition is not detaching the blast, whatever the transcript does.",
  "F5 - THE SPECIFICITY FALSIFIER. Cell type: a non-KMT2A-rearranged B-ALL line with low HOXA9/MEIS1 (for example REH, ETV6::RUNX1). System: identical revumenib exposure and identical CXCR4 flow and transwell readouts to F1 and F2. Kill criterion: CXCR4 surface level or CXCL12-directed migration falls by at least as much as in SEM and RS4;11. An equal effect in a line whose HOXA/MEIS1 program the drug does not run through means the readout is an off-target or general-toxicity effect and not an output of the fusion program."
]
How this could bite us back
  • If this hypothesis is TRUE it argues AGAINST a clinical programme this graph already holds: adding plerixafor to a menin inhibitor would be adding a second hit on an axis the first drug already suppresses, with additive mobilisation of normal HSCs and no additional anti-leukaemic mechanism.
  • If it is true it also predicts an early, transient rise in circulating blasts after the first menin-inhibitor dose - which in a clinic would be read as progression rather than as pharmacodynamics, and could stop an effective drug.
  • A positive re-analysis would be correlative. Menin inhibition changes thousands of transcripts and differentiation itself changes CXCR4 in myeloid cells, so a CXCR4 fall under a menin inhibitor is confounded by differentiation and F5's non-KMT2A control is the minimum needed to interpret it.
Still open
  1. Is CXCR4 a direct fusion target - does KMT2A::AFF1 or menin occupy the CXCR4 promoter - or is the whole effect relayed through HOXA9/MEIS1 and SYTL1? No occupancy data at CXCR4 exists in any KMT2A-rearranged system.
  2. If the axis is already suppressed by menin inhibition, is there any remaining rationale for adding a CXCR4 antagonist, or does the combination only add myelosuppression?
Every source behind this entry (5)
  1. E1strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    In RS4;11 (human MLL-AF4 / KMT2A::AFF1 B-precursor line), separate knockdown of MEIS1, HOXA7, HOXA9 or HOXA10 each hampered the CXCR4/SDF-1 axis - reduced migration toward an SDF-1 gradient and loss of SDF-1-augmented proliferation - with similar homing but slowed marrow colonisation in NOD/SCID mice.

    What this evidence cannot show

    This is the only index-fusion evidence for the hypothesis and it is a knockdown, not a drug. The abstract does not report whether CXCR4 surface protein fell, gives no effect sizes, and does not exclude that the migration defect is a general proliferative or viability consequence of losing a required transcription factor. Read from the abstract (rule 80).

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Knocking down a required transcription factor slows proliferation, and the same paper reports reduced BrdU incorporation in vitro and in vivo. A migration defect in a less proliferative cell is not automatically a CXCR4-axis defect, and the abstract does not separate the two. Orlovsky K et al. 2011
  2. E2strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    MEIS1 promotes leukaemic homing and engraftment by transactivating SYTL1, which determines intracellular trafficking of CXCR4; replacing SYTL1 in MEIS1-deficient cells restored migration and engraftment, and SYTL1 acts via the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Murine HOXA9/MEIS1 myeloid leukaemogenesis, not a KMT2A fusion model and not B-lineage (rule 73). Crucially the mechanism is post-transcriptional with respect to CXCR4 - MEIS1 controls a trafficking protein, not the receptor gene - which is why F1 and F3 score SYTL1 alongside CXCR4 and why a transcript-only negative would not settle the question.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • If the entire MEIS1 effect runs through SYTL1-dependent trafficking, then CXCR4 is not a transcriptional output of the fusion program at all and this hypothesis is mis-stated in its transcriptional arm, surviving only as a claim about receptor availability at the membrane. Yokoyama T et al. 2016
  3. E3strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    In KMT2A-rearranged AML, menin-inhibitor monotherapy down-regulates HOXA9/MEIS1, and transcriptome-wide RNA-sequencing under menin inhibition has been performed in this disease.

    What this evidence cannot show

    KMT2A-rearranged AML cell lines, primary cells ex vivo and a MOLM13 xenograft - myeloid, not infant B-lineage KMT2A::AFF1 (rule 73). Cited for two facts read directly from the fetched abstract; the paper does not mention CXCR4.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The same abstract notes that the HOXA9/MEIS1 down-regulation seen with monotherapy was 'not further strengthened' by the venetoclax combination, a reminder that the magnitude and durability of the HOXA/MEIS1 collapse at achievable drug exposures is variable - and F1 therefore requires the 70% knockdown to be verified in the same wells rather than assumed. Ling Q et al. 2023
  4. E4strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    In syngeneic murine MLL-AF9 AML, Cxcr4 deletion eradicated leukaemia in vivo WITHOUT impairing marrow homing, CXCL12 was dispensable for leukaemia development in recipients, mutant-receptor experiments showed CXCR4 signalling is what is required, and loss of CXCR4 signalling caused oxidative stress and differentiation in vivo.

    CXCR4 Signaling Has a CXCL12-Independent Essential Role in Murine MLL-AF9-Driven Acute Myeloid Leukemia · Ramakrishnan R, Pena-Martinez P, Agarwal P, et al. · Cell Rep 2020
    What this evidence cannot show

    Murine myeloid MLL-AF9, not the index fusion or lineage (rule 73). This evidence item exists to CONSTRAIN the hypothesis rather than support it: it is the reason the prior is 0.55 rather than 0.75 and the reason the entry refuses the retention framing.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The countervailing result is in the index lineage: in primary infant MLL-rearranged ALL, stroma protects blasts differentially versus non-MLL-rearranged ALL and CXCR4 inhibition with AMD3100 markedly enhanced lestaurtinib efficacy in a xenograft - which is hard to explain if the axis does nothing adhesive. The two may differ by lineage, by species, or because pharmacological antagonism and genetic deletion are not the same perturbation. Sison EA et al. 2013
  5. E5strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.dataset

    Deposited public human transcriptomes under menin inhibition in KMT2A-rearranged AML exist, including GSE281506, an expression-profiling-by-high-throughput-sequencing series of 42 human samples on combined menin and MEK inhibition in KMT2A-rearranged RAS-pathway-mutant AML.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Confirmed by GEO esummary readback of accession, gdstype, sample count, taxon and title on 2026-09-22; the individual samples were NOT inspected, so whether a menin-inhibitor-alone arm exists in this particular series is the first thing the analysis must check. If it does not, another of the 88 revumenib-matching GEO records must be substituted, and F3 is written to allow that.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • GEO metadata has misled this project before - a SuperSeries returned three independent false negatives about whether it held raw data, one of them a reCAPTCHA page that parsed cleanly. An esummary readback is stronger than those routes but is still metadata; the SOFT family file is the authoritative check and was not run here. NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus 2026
Connected to