Oncofusion

start / graph / ana-menin-partner-selectivity-profiling

Analysismoderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.Q12-analogy

Analysis (runnable): can a menin ligand tell KMT2A from JUND? A structural and co-folding selectivity profile of the whole inhibitor class

A computer study comparing how menin grips the fusion protein and how it grips JUND, then asking whether any of the existing drugs, or any possible drug, could block one grip without breaking the other.

The same thing, for a scientist

A three-stage computational analysis with a defined wet-lab handoff. Stage 1 compares the menin-MLL1 and menin-JUND binding modes across all deposited structures, quantifying contact footprints, buried surface, induced-fit differences and the LEDGF-facing composite surface. Stage 2 co-folds menin with each peptide and with each class inhibitor (revumenib, ziftomenib, bleximenib, enzomenib, icovamenib) using Boltz, scoring predicted competitive displacement of each partner. Stage 3 checks whether the predicted ranking reproduces the class differences already visible in labels and trial reports. The wet-lab handoff is a two-peptide fluorescence-polarisation counter-screen, which is a week of bench work and is the actual decision point.

Go deeper
Stage 1 — structural comparison, using what is already deposited

The menin structure set in this graph includes 3U85, 3U88, 4GQ6, 7UJ4, 8E90, 8VA6, 8VA5, 9Z4X and 9C4S-9C4V. The 2012 work deposited menin alone, menin-MLL1, menin-JUND and menin-MLL1-LEDGF 1. Compute per-residue contact maps for the MLL1 and JUND peptides, buried surface area, and the RMSD of pocket side chains between the two complexes. The estimand is simple: is there any residue or sub-pocket contacted by one peptide and not the other?

If the answer is no, report that and stop. That is a real and useful negative result which would close the strong form of hyp-partner-selective-menin-ligand-separates-mandates for a day of work.

Stage 2 — co-folding and predicted displacement

Boltz co-folding of menin with (a) the MBM1 peptide, (b) the JUND peptide, (c) each inhibitor, and (d) ternary attempts with LEDGF. Score predicted binding and derive a displacement ranking per compound per partner. Boltz credits are available to this lab monthly, so the compute is free; the honest caveat is that co-folding scores are not affinities and their rank-order accuracy for closely related peptide-pocket competition is not established, so Stage 2 output is a hypothesis-generator for Stage 3 rather than a result.

Stage 3 — does the prediction match what is already known?

Check the predicted ranking against three independent observable class differences: reported acquired MEN1 mutation rates (39% post-revumenib, not identified after ziftomenib or bleximenib) 2, the presence of a hyperparathyroidism signal on the revumenib label and its absence from the ziftomenib label, and reported differentiation-syndrome rates. Concordance across two or more of these would be striking; concordance across none would suggest the model has no purchase.

This stage is explicitly exploratory and underpowered — three or four compounds is not a dataset. It is included because it is free and because a strong mismatch would be an early warning not to commission the bench work.

The wet-lab handoff, which is the real decision point

A fluorescence-polarisation counter-screen using the established MBM1 tracer 3 alongside a JUND tracer, run against each class compound, giving a KMT2A-versus-JUND displacement ratio per compound. One week, standard reagents, no new chemistry. Everything computational above exists to make this week of bench work well-aimed, and if resources are tight the correct move is to skip Stages 1-3 and run the counter-screen.

Facts and figures
scriptanalyses/menin-partner-selectivity/run.py
statusplanned
result summaryNot yet run. No result should be quoted from this node.
cost tierlow
computestructural comparison is laptop-scale; Boltz co-folding uses the monthly Boltz credits available to this lab
timelineStage 1 one day, Stage 2 one week, Stage 3 one day, bench counter-screen one week
stopping ruleIf Stage 1 finds no residue contacted by one peptide and not the other, report the negative and do not commission Stage 2.
honest limitationCo-folding scores are not affinities and their rank-order accuracy for competition between two similar peptides in one pocket is not established. Stage 2 cannot settle anything on its own and must not be reported as if it could.
inputs
[
  "PDB entries for menin complexes: 3U85, 3U88, 4GQ6, 7UJ4, 8E90, 8VA6, 8VA5, 9Z4X, 9C4S-9C4V",
  "UniProt O00255 (menin), Q03164 (KMT2A) and P17535 (JUND) sequences",
  "SMILES for revumenib (CHEMBL4650827), ziftomenib, bleximenib, enzomenib and icovamenib from ChEMBL",
  "Reported class differences in MEN1 mutation rate, hyperparathyroidism and differentiation syndrome from labels and PMID 41347983"
]
outputs
[
  "per-residue contact maps and buried-surface comparison for menin-MLL1 versus menin-JUND",
  "list of residues or sub-pockets contacted by one partner and not the other, or an explicit statement that none exist",
  "Boltz co-folding scores and a predicted per-compound displacement ranking for each partner",
  "concordance table against observed class differences",
  "a one-page specification for the two-peptide fluorescence-polarisation counter-screen"
]
tests hypotheses
[
  "hyp-partner-selective-menin-ligand-separates-mandates"
]
menin mbm1 kd conditions
{
  "_why": "Added by king sweep 2026-09-21 (Q82 corrections-owed #3). This entry quotes the menin-MBM1 53 nM figure. That number is NOT comparable to the KMT2A CXXC-DNA affinities without stating its buffer, and the omission is how a 1,300-fold 'discrepancy' was manufactured.",
  "value": "53 nM",
  "motif": "KMT2A MBM1, residues 4-15, FITC-labelled peptide at 15 nM",
  "method": "fluorescence polarisation",
  "buffer": "50 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT",
  "nacl_mM": 50,
  "companion_itc": "72 nM by ITC, 50 mM phosphate pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM beta-mercaptoethanol, 27 C",
  "source_pmid": "20961854",
  "source_quote": "\"in the FP buffer (50 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, 1 mM DTT) used for binding experiments (Kd measurements)\" -- Grembecka 2010 JBC, Methods, fetched and read from PMC3003368 on 2026-09-21",
  "do_not_compare_naively": {
    "against": "KMT2A CXXC-DNA Kd 44 uM (PMID 20010842, Cierpicki 2010)",
    "because": "that measurement was made at 300 mM NaCl -- verbatim from its Methods, \"50 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.1), 300 mM NaCl, 2 mM DTT at 25 C\" (PMC2908503, read 2026-09-21) -- SIX-FOLD more salt, on a salt-sensitive protein-DNA contact, against a hydrophobic peptide pocket that is not.",
    "best_matched_pair": "44 uM at 300 mM NaCl vs the 5.7 uM tagless CXXC measurement at 150 mM NaCl gives 108-fold against menin, not ~1,000-fold",
    "see": "ana-the-menin-affinity-comparison-was-made-at-one-sixth-the-salt"
  },
  "added": "2026-09-21"
}
cxxc dna kd conditions
{
  "_why": "Added by king sweep 2026-09-21 (cycle 46). This entry quotes the KMT2A CXXC-DNA 44 uM. That number is a property of five choices, not of the molecule, and quoting it bare is how this graph manufactured a 1,300-fold 'discrepancy' with the menin contact.",
  "value": "44 uM",
  "construct": "isolated CXXC domain, KMT2A 1147-1203, untagged, 15N-labelled",
  "ligand": "DNA pal oligonucleotide, one CpG element",
  "method": "NMR titration",
  "buffer": "50 mM phosphate, pH 7.1, 300 mM NaCl, 2 mM DTT, 25 C",
  "nacl_mM": 300,
  "source_pmid": "20010842",
  "source_quote": "\"Determination of the dissociation constants by NMR for the CXXC domain (MLL 1147-1203) and mutants was performed by titration of 15N-labeled protein with concentrated solutions of DNA pal oligonucleotide. Experiments were carried out in 50 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.1), 300 mM NaCl, 2 mM DTT at 25 C.\" -- Cierpicki 2010 NSMB, Methods, fetched and read from PMC2908503 on 2026-09-21. The result sentence reads \"The wild type protein yielded a Kd of 44 uM\".",
  "this_is_the_high_salt_end": "300 mM NaCl is roughly twice physiological ionic strength and SIX TIMES the 50 mM the menin-MBM1 53 nM was measured in. The same domain measured tagless at 150 mM NaCl gives 5.7 uM -- 7.7-fold tighter from salt alone.",
  "do_not_compare_naively": {
    "against": "menin-MBM1 53 nM (PMID 20961854), measured at 50 mM NaCl by FP",
    "best_matched_pair": "108-fold, not ~1,000-fold",
    "see": "ana-the-menin-affinity-comparison-was-made-at-one-sixth-the-salt"
  },
  "added": "2026-09-21"
}
How this could bite us back
  • Presenting a co-folding ranking as if it were a measured selectivity profile would be a serious error, and the temptation to do so is high because the numbers look precise. The stopping rule and the honest-limitation note exist to prevent it.
Still open
  1. Are there deposited structures of menin with any client other than MLL1 and JUND that would widen the selectivity question beyond two partners?
  2. Can a LEDGF-dependent, context-selective ligand be posed as a co-folding problem at all, or does it require a ternary-complex screening approach that computation cannot reach?
Every source behind this entry (4)
  1. E1strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    Crystal structures of free menin, menin-MLL1, menin-JUND and menin-MLL1-LEDGF are published, with both peptides occupying the same deep central pocket and LEDGF engaging a distinct composite surface formed by menin and MLL1 together.

    What this evidence cannot show

    Peptide complexes rather than full-length; any selectivity determinant outside the peptide footprint is invisible in this dataset.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • Expect a narrow dynamic range, and power the assay for it. The crystal structures show MLL1 and JUND short peptides binding the same deep central pocket 'in the same manner'; a pocket-occupying inhibitor blocks both by the same steric mechanism, so compound-to-compound variation in JUND displacement will come only from differential sub-pocket contacts. A two-peptide fluorescence-polarisation counter-screen may well return selectivity ratios clustered near unity, in which case the informative output is the confidence interval, not the ranking. The profiling remains worth running — nobody has done it — but it should pre-specify the selectivity ratio that would count as meaningful rather than reporting whichever compound comes top. Huang J et al. 2012
  2. E2moderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.review

    Menin inhibitors differ in safety, QTc, cytopenia and pharmacokinetic profiles, and acquired MEN1 mutations described in 39% of post-revumenib relapses have not been identified following ziftomenib or bleximenib.

    The promise of menin inhibitors: from approval to triplet regimens · Thakur RK, Wang ES · Hematology, American Society of Hematology Education Program 2025
    What this evidence cannot show

    Review-level; differential follow-up is a strong alternative explanation for the MEN1-mutation difference and must be stated alongside any concordance found in Stage 3.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • The clinical anchor for this profile — MEN1 interface mutations after revumenib but not after ziftomenib or bleximenib — is not yet a demonstrated class difference. Emergent menin-binding-site mutations occurred in 13% of 42 patients on a revumenib-containing triplet, so the rate depends on regimen, response depth and follow-up, and the comparator agents have smaller, shorter-followed exposed populations. Until exposure-matched sequencing is available, the profiling should not be validated against, or interpreted through, the reported class difference. Issa GC et al. 2026
  3. E3strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper

    A validated fluorescence-polarisation assay for the menin-MBM1 interaction exists, reporting Kd 53 nM for KMT2A 4-15 and 1,400 nM for MBM2, providing the assay format for a two-peptide counter-screen.

    Molecular basis of the mixed lineage leukemia-menin interaction: implications for targeting mixed lineage leukemias · Grembecka J, Belcher AM, Hartley T, et al. · Journal of Biological Chemistry 2010
    What this evidence cannot show

    A JUND tracer would need to be developed and its affinity determined before ratios are meaningful.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • A fluorescence-polarisation assay measures competition against a labelled peptide in buffer, so the Kd values it returns are for isolated motifs at equilibrium with purified menin. A two-peptide counter-screen built on it would rank compounds by their behaviour in that system, which is a long way from occupancy in a nucleus where MBM1 arrives inside a 3,969-residue protein in a complex. Cancer Research 2014
  4. E4moderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.paper

    Menin-MLL inhibitors disrupt menin-JUND interactions and increase JUND chromatin occupancy, making JUND displacement a consequential rather than academic property to profile.

    Menin-MLL inhibitors enhance JUND activity in MLLr leukemic cells contributing to tumorigenesis and therapy resistance · Ozyerli-Goknar E, Perner F, Armstrong SA, Zeiser R, Timmers HTM, et al. · Blood 2026
    What this evidence cannot show

    Recent and unreplicated; if it does not replicate, this analysis loses its motivation.

    Evidence that argues against this (1)
    • JUND displacement being consequential cuts both ways and the entry takes only one side. If inhibitors increase JUND chromatin occupancy, then a partner-selective ligand that spares JUND would also forgo whatever therapeutic contribution JUND redistribution makes — and nobody has shown whether that contribution is helpful or harmful. Nature 2012
Connected to