Oncofusion

start / graph / hyp-q148-the-double-negative-blast-is-a-low-oncoprotein-dosage-state-rather-than-a-redirected-one

Hypothesisspeculative confidence 1 of 5: Our own inference or analogy. Not shown to be true.Q148-what-the-hoxa-negative-blast-occupies

Hypothesis: the HOXA-negative, IRX1-negative KMT2A-rearranged blast is a low-oncoprotein-dosage state, not a state whose oncoprotein has been redirected to another programme

When the fusion protein is missing from its usual genes, the simplest explanation is that there is not much of it on the DNA anywhere - not that it has gone somewhere else. That is a testable difference, and it predicts a drug that targets the fusion will do less in those patients.

The same thing, for a scientist

Both depth-usable double-negative samples in GSE252378 - **A73051** (KMT2A-AF10, paediatric AML, Fred Hutch, depth-ADEQUATE) and **TB920488** (KMT2A::AFF1, infant Pre-B-ALL, St. Jude, depth-MARGINAL) - share one profile: the canonical oncoprotein-target promoter class is in the bottom quartile of the deposit (1.208x and 1.720x against an untreated range of 1.208-3.330), the N-over-C fusion-specificity ratio is at or near parity (1.048 and 1.494 against a cohort maximum of 2.846), and the GMP-like class is indistinguishable from a coverability-matched null (0.936x and 0.929x). **The hypothesis is that double-negativity is a dosage phenotype.** The deposit's own paper supplies the axis - it is titled *MLL oncoprotein levels influence leukemia lineage identities*, reports that genomic enrichment of the oncoprotein *"is highly variable between samples and subject to dynamic regulation"*, and states that the programme-preference effect appears *"at high levels of expression"*. A sample with little oncoprotein on chromatin would then have no strong programme preference of any kind, which is exactly what is measured. **The rival model - that the oncoprotein has moved to an unmeasured third programme - predicts a normal total occupancy with an unusual distribution, and the total is not normal.** The therapeutic consequence is direct and uncomfortable: a menin inhibitor displaces the oncoprotein from chromatin, and in a blast that has little oncoprotein on chromatin at diagnosis there is correspondingly little to displace.

Go deeper
What would distinguish dosage from redirection
observationdosage model predictsredirection model predicts
spike-in-normalised total oncoprotein occupancylownormal
N-over-C excess summed genome-wideabsentpresent, at other intervals
fusion transcript or protein levellownormal
an unbiased scan for the top N-over-C intervalsno coherent programmea coherent, nameable programme
menin-inhibitor sensitivity ex vivolowretained

None of the five is answerable from GSE252378, because there is no spike-in, no RNA, and the genome-wide N-over-C scan has not been run on these two samples. The fourth row is the cheapest: it is compute-only on public bigWigs and it is the falsifier this hypothesis should be scored on first.

Why the dosage reading is not simply 'the assay failed'

A failed library would flatten everything, including the negative controls. A73051's eight-locus non-expressed floor is 0.173x, far below an average promoter, so its shares still have dynamic range - it is depth-ADEQUATE with p_dz 0.012, the fourth best in the deposit, and its raw promoter coverage ranks 7th and 10th of 54 N libraries. By contrast 152985, the revumenib-exposed aliquot whose signal genuinely collapsed, has a floor of 0.718x - its shares have flattened toward 1.0, which is what global eviction does to a within-sample share.

So A73051 is not a broken library that reads noise; it is a working library reading a small amount of signal. That distinction is the whole basis for calling this a state rather than an artefact, and it is the weakest link in the hypothesis.

Facts and figures
statementThe HOXA-negative, IRX1-negative KMT2A-rearranged blast is a state of low oncoprotein occupancy on chromatin rather than a state in which a normal amount of oncoprotein has been redirected to a different gene programme; double-negativity at HOXA and IRX1 is therefore a symptom of dosage and not an address.
origindata-pattern
prior probability0.45
predictions
[
  "A spike-in-normalised KMT2A-N CUT&RUN in A73051 or a comparable double-negative blast will show a LOWER total genome-wide occupancy than a HOXA-positive KMT2A-rearranged blast processed in the same batch, by at least twofold.",
  "An unbiased genome-wide scan for intervals with N-over-C above 1.75 at p < 1e-5 in A73051 will return no coherent gene programme - operationally, no GO or cell-type signature at FDR 0.05 - whereas the same scan in A93692 (the other KMT2A-AF10 sample, HOXA 20.0x, same institution) will return HOXA and MEIS1-associated terms.",
  "Double-negative blasts will be LESS sensitive to a menin inhibitor ex vivo than HOXA-positive KMT2A-rearranged blasts, because there is less chromatin-bound oncoprotein to displace.",
  "If the fusion transcript is measurable, it will be lower in double-negative blasts, or the breakpoint will remove domains required for chromatin engagement."
]
experiments
[
  "exp-q148-spike-in-normalised-paired-n-and-c-cut-and-run-in-a-hoxa-negative-kmt2a-rearranged-blast"
]
analyses
[
  "ana-q148-a73051-is-globally-low-oncoprotein-not-hoxa-selectively-low",
  "ana-q148-against-a-coverability-matched-null-the-gmp-like-class-is-enriched-in-one-of-twenty-seven-samples-and-it-is-the-one-that-defined-it"
]
falsifiers
[
  "A genome-wide N-over-C scan in A73051's two KMT2A-N and two KMT2A-C libraries returns a set of intervals with N/C above 1.75 whose annotated genes are coherently enriched for any named cell-type or pathway signature at FDR 0.05, with at least 50 intervals. That would be redirection, not dosage, and it kills this hypothesis. **Compute-only on public bigWigs; not yet run.**",
  "A spike-in-normalised repeat in a double-negative KMT2A-rearranged blast shows total genome-wide oncoprotein occupancy within 1.5-fold of a HOXA-positive blast in the same batch. Dosage then cannot be the explanation.",
  "A double-negative blast responds to a menin inhibitor as well as or better than a HOXA-positive one in a matched ex vivo assay, with at least three samples per arm. The dosage model's therapeutic prediction then fails even if its occupancy prediction holds."
]
measurements
[
  {
    "quantity": "n_double_negative_samples_sharing_the_profile",
    "subject": "A73051 and TB920488 - bottom-quartile canonical occupancy, near-parity N/C, GMP class at the matched null",
    "value": 2,
    "units": "samples",
    "n": 2,
    "universe": "GSE252378's two depth-usable HOXA-negative IRX1-negative samples",
    "null": "n = 2 cannot carry a statistic; the smallest attainable exact two-sided p is 1.0",
    "note": "two partners, two lineages, two institutions, one MARGINAL depth"
  }
]
How this could bite us back
  • If double-negative blasts are low-dosage, they are the patients in whom a menin inhibitor has least to do, and they would be enrolled anyway because they carry the rearrangement. That is a selection failure nobody currently screens for.
  • The mirror risk: if 'low oncoprotein on chromatin' predicts poor menin-inhibitor response, then measuring it becomes an exclusion criterion, and excluding patients on a within-sample share with no spike-in would be excluding them on an uncalibrated number.
  • A dosage model also implies the fusion is doing less work in those cells, which raises the question of what is maintaining the leukaemia instead - and if the answer is a fusion-independent programme, no KMT2A-directed therapy addresses it.
Still open
  1. What is the quantitative boundary between a low-dosage blast and a redirected one? Nothing in this literature defines it, and without a definition the two models are hard to separate even with better data.
  2. If low dosage is common at diagnosis, is it prognostic? The deposit's paper ties low levels to lineage switching, which is a poor-outcome event, but no cohort has been stratified on occupancy level.
  3. Does a KMT2A-AF10 breakpoint that retains the menin-binding motifs but loses the octapeptide or AF10 OM-LZ produce this profile? A73051's breakpoint is not recorded in the deposit.
Every source behind this entry (2)
  1. E1moderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.dataset

    Both depth-usable double-negative GSE252378 samples have bottom-quartile canonical oncoprotein-target occupancy, near-parity N-over-C, and a GMP-like class indistinguishable from a coverability-matched null.

    What this evidence cannot show

    n = 2, two different partners, two lineages, two institutions, and one of the two is depth-MARGINAL. No statistic is attached to their agreement. TB920488's single-locus positive controls (MEIS1 5.9-11.2x, CDK6 5.4-23.2x, from the q147 beat) disagree with its class-mean reading.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • A73051's own q147 entry records MEIS1 at 2.42x and 2.61x, which clears the readability gate. A blast with MEIS1 occupancy is not devoid of oncoprotein, so 'low dosage' has to mean low rather than absent, and the quantitative boundary between low and redirected is not established anywhere. Q148 (Oncofusion Knowledge Graph) 2026
  2. E2strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    The deposit's paper establishes oncoprotein level as the axis on which programme preference depends, reporting the preference at high levels of expression and reduced levels in lineage-switching samples.

    MLL oncoprotein levels influence leukemia lineage identities. · Janssens DH, Duran M, Otto DJ, Wu W, Xu Y, Kirkey D, Mullighan CG, Yi JS, Meshinchi S, Sarthy JF, Ahmad K, Henikoff S · Nature Communications 15:9341 2024
    What this evidence cannot show

    The paper's dosage axis is measured across 36 samples with their own normalisation; this hypothesis imports the axis and applies it to two samples with a different instrument. The paper does not discuss A73051 or TB920488 as low-dosage samples.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The paper's low-level samples are the LINEAGE-SWITCHING ones, and neither A73051 nor TB920488 is labelled a lineage-switching sample in GEO. So if dosage drives the switch, these two should be switching and there is no evidence that they are - which is a genuine prediction failure for the imported axis. Janssens DH et al. 2024
Connected to