Severability (contract law) — what survives when a clause is struck, and what survives a KMT2A break
also called blue-pencil doctrine · severability clause analogy
When a court strikes one clause out of a contract, settled rules decide whether the rest of the agreement still stands. A chromosome break does something structurally identical to a protein, and those rules make a prediction about where breaks are allowed to fall.
The same thing, for a scientist
Contract law has a worked-out theory of partial invalidity. A severability clause lets an agreement survive the striking of one term; the blue-pencil rule permits a court to strike words but not to rewrite them; and severance fails outright when the struck term goes to the consideration or to the main purpose of the bargain. KMT2A translocation is severance performed on a 3,969-residue multidomain protein. Reading the two together generates a specific, non-obvious claim: because a cell cannot rewrite a reading frame or re-fold half a domain, the positions at which KMT2A can be severed and still yield a working product are inter-domain linkers — and the observed major breakpoint cluster region does sit in the linker between the CXXC domain and PHD1. That retrodiction is what makes the analogy worth formalising, because it converts into a testable claim that product-viability selection is detectable in the breakpoint distribution over and above DNA fragility.
The three legal rules being imported1 deeper
- Severability. A contract containing a severability clause survives the invalidation of one term; the remainder is enforced as written.
- The blue-pencil rule. A court may delete offending words, but it may not add or rewrite words to save the agreement. Severance is subtractive only.
- Main-purpose / consideration limit. If the struck term is the consideration, or goes to the main purpose of the bargain, the whole contract falls. You cannot sever the heart of the deal.
Each has a direct biological counterpart, listed in data.mapping 3.
Why the blue-pencil rule is the load-bearing one
Biology is subtractive at a translocation in exactly the way a court is. There is no editor to repair a disrupted reading frame, and no chaperone that can fold the N-terminal half of a PHD finger into something stable. The break either falls somewhere the protein tolerates, or the product is garbage. This is why the blue-pencil rule, rather than severability in general, generates the prediction: permitted cut points should lie between structured units, not inside one.
The retrodiction the observed breakpoint map already satisfies1 deeper
98% of KMT2A breaks fall in a major cluster region running from intron 7 to exon 13, with a minor region at introns 20-24 1. In protein coordinates the major region lies downstream of the CXXC domain and upstream of PHD1 — in the linker between two folded modules. The functional cut point the recombinome authors themselves identify, exon 11, is the point past which the PHD1-3 module is destroyed 1. Both facts are what the blue-pencil rule predicts: severance between clauses, not through one.
This is a retrodiction, not a prediction, and is weak evidence on its own. Its value is that it licenses the forward prediction in hyp-severability-linker-constrained-breakpoints.
The consideration that can never be severed
Every recurrent leukemogenic KMT2A fusion retains the extreme N-terminus carrying MBM1 (residues 4-15, core RWRFP at 6-10), which binds menin at 53 nM and whose Phe9 mutation costs roughly 160-fold 2. In the legal mapping this is the consideration: strike it and there is no bargain at all. That no recurrent fusion severs it is the strongest single support for the mapping — and it is also the entire basis of the lab's menin-interface strategy.
Where the analogy breaks down (stated plainly)
Severance in law is a decision taken after the fact by a court applying a purpose test. In biology there is no purposive agent; what looks like a rule is the output of two filters in sequence — DNA fragility decides where breaks occur, and clonal selection decides which broken products are seen. The analogy cannot tell these apart, and conflating them is the main way it could mislead. Separating them is exactly what ana-breakpoint-linker-vs-fragility-decomposition is for.
The analogy is also silent on gain of function. A severed contract never acquires new obligations; KMT2A::AFF1 does, by importing the AFF1 elongation machinery. Severability explains what is kept and lost and explains nothing about the neomorph, which is the part that causes the disease.
| domain | law |
|---|---|
| source doctrine | severability, the blue-pencil rule, and the main-purpose limit on severance |
| dead end note | Severability says nothing about gain of function. It explains retention and loss and is silent on the neomorphic elongation activity the fusion acquires. |
mapping
[
{
"bio": "KMT2A, a 3,969-residue protein built from separable modules (AT-hooks, CXXC, PHD1-3, bromodomain, FYRN/FYRC, TAD, SET)",
"analog": "a long contract composed of separately identifiable clauses"
},
{
"bio": "the translocation breakpoint",
"analog": "a court striking a clause from the agreement"
},
{
"bio": "MBM1 (aa 4-15, RWRFP), retained in every recurrent KMT2A fusion",
"analog": "the consideration — strike it and there is no contract at all"
},
{
"bio": "the CXXC domain, retained in all leukemogenic fusions, which fixes where the protein acts on the genome",
"analog": "the clause identifying the subject matter of the bargain"
},
{
"bio": "PHD1-3, the bromodomain and SET, lost in the fusion",
"analog": "collateral covenants severable without defeating the main purpose"
},
{
"bio": "the requirement that the junction be in frame and that the product fold",
"analog": "the blue-pencil rule — strike words, never rewrite them"
},
{
"bio": "the major breakpoint cluster region lying in the CXXC-to-PHD1 inter-domain linker",
"analog": "severance permitted only between clauses, not through the middle of one"
},
{
"bio": "the reciprocal AFF1::KMT2A product, expressed in only about 45% of t(4;11) cases",
"analog": "the severed remainder, which may or may not itself be an enforceable agreement"
},
{
"bio": "non-recurrent breaks outside the cluster regions",
"analog": "severance that defeats the main purpose and voids the whole contract"
}
]generated hypotheses
[ "hyp-severability-linker-constrained-breakpoints", "hyp-reciprocal-product-as-enforceable-remainder" ]
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"
}- If product-viability selection does shape the breakpoint map, the rarest break classes are rare because they make poor products, and a drug developed against the common classes may be tested in patients whose fusion is structurally different in a way nobody stratifies for.
- The analogy makes retention of the menin-binding motif look inevitable, which is comforting and invites over-confidence in a single-target strategy. The motif is retained because it is required, which is exactly why mutating around the drug is cheap for the cell.
- Is the co-location of the major breakpoint cluster region with the CXXC-to-PHD1 linker a coincidence of intron architecture, or evidence that product viability shapes which breaks are observed?
- Do the minor cluster region (introns 20-24) and the 3' boundary of the major region also fall in inter-domain linkers once mapped onto a current KMT2A domain model?
- Does the same linker constraint hold on the partner side, where the required retained element is an elongation-competent module rather than a binding motif?
- E1strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper
In 3,401 patients, 98% of KMT2A breaks fall in a major cluster region from intron 7 to exon 13 and 1.4% in a minor region from intron 20 to exon 24, with subregion shares of 37.2% (exon 9-intron 9), 19.8% (exon 10-intron 10) and 39.5% (exon 11-exon 13); the authors identify exon 11 as the functional cut point because breaks at or past it destroy the PHD1-3 module, and state that whether breakpoint position affects clinical outcome remains unclear.
The KMT2A recombinome of acute leukemias in 2023. · Meyer C, Larghero P, Almeida Lopes B, et al. · Leukemia 2023What this evidence cannot show
A referral-based diagnostic series, not a population sample; ascertainment is biased toward cases sent for breakpoint characterisation, and detection methods changed over the twenty years of accrual.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- The same group's 2024 update revises the KMT2A gene structure to 38 exons and shifts the core cluster to exons 9-12 (90.85% of breaks), so any positional analysis must pin its gene model explicitly. Meyer C et al. 2024
- E2strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper
KMT2A MBM1 (residues 4-15, core RWRFP at 6-10) binds menin with Kd 53 nM by fluorescence polarisation and 72 nM by calorimetry; the weaker MBM2 motif (residues 23-40) binds at about 1,400 nM; Phe9 is a hot spot whose mutation costs roughly 160-fold.
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 2010What this evidence cannot show
Affinities are for isolated peptides in solution and exclude the avidity contributed by CXXC-DNA binding and LEDGF in a cell.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- The affinity data are the load-bearing evidence and they are in vitro, on short peptides. A 53 nM MBM1 against a 1,400 nM MBM2 describes isolated motifs; in the fusion both are present on one chain, so avidity makes the effective affinity of the pair unlike either measured alone. Cancer Research 2014
- E3established confidence 5 of 5: Multiple independent lines of evidence; treated as settled in the field.database
Severability and the blue-pencil rule are settled doctrines of contract law: a severability clause preserves the remainder of an agreement when one provision is held invalid, courts applying the blue-pencil rule may strike offending language but may not rewrite it, and severance is refused where the invalid term is essential to the main purpose of the bargain.
Severability clause (Wex legal encyclopedia) · Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School · Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute 2024What this evidence cannot show
A source-domain reference, not biological evidence. It constrains the shape of the analogy and supports no claim about leukemia.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- A legal doctrine is a normative rule about what courts do, not a fact about molecules. The analogy is generative — it suggests what to look for — and it cannot supply evidence, because the doctrine was constructed to serve purposes that have nothing to do with this system, and its edge cases were settled by argument rather than by measurement. Every prediction it produces still has to be tested against biology. Severability is also the doctrine least likely to transfer: a court decides whether a remainder is coherent by reading the parties' intent, and a translocation has no intent to read. U.S. National Library of Medicine 2026
- analogous to →Breakpoint anatomy, and an audit of the prognosis claim
imports the blue-pencil rule to reinterpret the breakpoint cluster region as a linker constraint
MBM1 mapped to the consideration clause, the one term severance can never touch
- related to →KMT2A::AFF1 (MLL-AF4), t(4;11)(q21;q23)
the severed agreement under analysis
generated by the blue-pencil rule
generated by the enforceable-remainder rule