Hypothesis: menin inhibitors differ in how much JUND they liberate, and the least JUND-liberating compound will be the most durable
Menin holds a second protein, JUND, in check. The drugs that displace the fusion also let JUND go, and free JUND helps the leukemia survive. If different drugs release different amounts of JUND, the best drug is the one that releases the least.
The same thing, for a scientist
Menin-MLL inhibitors disrupt menin-JUND as well as menin-MLL, increasing JUND chromatin occupancy and contributing to resistance [E1]. Menin inhibitors are chemically distinct and already differ measurably in resistance and toxicity profile, with acquired MEN1 mutations reported in 39% of post-revumenib relapses but not after ziftomenib or bleximenib [E2]. We hypothesise that the degree of menin-JUND displacement is a compound-specific property, that it varies across the approved and investigational class, and that lower JUND displacement predicts greater durability of response independent of potency against the menin-KMT2A interaction. The stronger form of the hypothesis is that a ligand can be designed that blocks the KMT2A binding mode while preserving menin-JUND — a genuine segregation of duties. This is our inference; it has not been tested, and the 2012 structures reporting that both peptides bind the same pocket in the same manner [E3] are evidence against the stronger form.
Two claims of very different strength
Weak form (prior 0.55). Existing menin inhibitors differ in JUND displacement. This requires only that compounds with different scaffolds, different residence times and different contact footprints perturb a second peptide-binding equilibrium to different extents, which is unremarkable medicinal chemistry. It is measurable in a week with fluorescence polarisation and in a month with chromatin profiling.
Strong form (prior 0.2). A ligand exists that is selective enough to be useful — blocking KMT2A while substantially sparing JUND. This requires a real difference between the two binding modes, which the published crystallography argues against 3. It is worth stating because if it is true it is very valuable, and because the weak form is a cheap experiment that bears directly on it.
Separating these two is the point. A great deal of hypothesis writing quietly slides between a cheap claim and an expensive one; this node refuses to.
Why this could explain something already observed
The class differences are real and currently unexplained. Revumenib carries a 39% MEN1-mutation rate at relapse; ziftomenib and bleximenib have not shown the same 2. Revumenib has a documented hyperparathyroidism signal; the ziftomenib label does not carry endocrine terms. The standard explanations are follow-up length and sequencing intensity, which are plausible and may well be correct.
An alternative that nobody has tested is that the compounds engage the pocket differently enough to displace menin's other clients to different degrees, which would change both the resistance landscape and the endocrine signal. This hypothesis is worth writing mainly because it offers a single measurable variable that could account for two separate unexplained class differences at once — and because if it is wrong, one experiment says so.
The design route, if the weak form holds
If compounds differ, the next question is what they differ by, which is a structural question answerable with co-crystals and with co-folding prediction. The JUND and MLL1 peptides differ in sequence; any difference in flanking contacts, in the conformational state the pocket adopts, or in the LEDGF-facing composite surface is a handle. Boltz co-folding of menin with each peptide and with each ligand, scored for competitive displacement, is the cheap computational first pass and is planned in ana-menin-partner-selectivity-profiling.
The pragmatic near-term application does not require any new chemistry at all: if one marketed compound liberates less JUND, that is an argument for using it, and an argument for adding a JNK inhibitor to the ones that liberate more.
| statement | The degree to which a menin-pocket inhibitor displaces JUND from menin is a compound-specific property that varies measurably across revumenib, ziftomenib, bleximenib, enzomenib and icovamenib; compounds with lower JUND displacement produce less JUND chromatin gain, less JUND-driven resistance and more durable responses at matched potency against the menin-KMT2A interaction. |
|---|---|
| origin | analogy |
| source analogy | analogy-law-fiduciary-conflicted-menin |
| prior probability | 0.4 |
| prior reasoning | The weak form — that compounds differ in JUND displacement — we put at about 0.55, because different scaffolds perturbing a second peptide equilibrium differently is ordinary. The strong form — that a usefully selective ligand exists — we put at about 0.2, because the published structures report the two peptides binding in the same manner. The composite figure of 0.4 reflects that the hypothesis as stated needs the weak form plus a downstream durability effect. |
| decision value | The weak form is answerable in weeks with existing reagents and would either explain two unexplained class differences at once or eliminate an attractive-sounding idea. Either outcome is worth the cost. |
predictions
[ "In a head-to-head fluorescence-polarisation counter-screen with MBM1 and JUND peptides, the menin-inhibitor class shows a spread of at least 5-fold in KMT2A-versus-JUND displacement ratio.", "Compounds with lower JUND displacement produce less JUND chromatin gain by CUT&RUN and less upregulation of JUND target genes at matched menin displacement.", "Adding a JNK inhibitor benefits the high-JUND-displacement compounds more than the low-displacement ones, which is a clean interaction test.", "If the endocrine mandate is also pocket-mediated, the same ranking predicts the parathyroid-hormone signal across compounds, which can be checked against existing label and trial data rather than generated.", "Boltz or comparable co-folding of menin with each peptide and each ligand recovers the experimentally measured selectivity ranking, validating the computational route for designing a selective ligand." ]
experiments
[]
analyses
[ "ana-menin-partner-selectivity-profiling" ]
falsifiers
[ "All menin inhibitors displace JUND to within 2-fold of each other, which would make JUND liberation a target property rather than a compound property and remove any design opportunity.", "JUND displacement across compounds shows no relationship to JUND chromatin gain or to durability in models.", "Structural and computational analysis finds no exploitable difference between the MLL1 and JUND binding modes, killing the strong form outright.", "The JUND resistance mechanism fails to replicate in an independent group, in which case there is nothing to select against." ]
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"
}- Selectivity is bought with affinity. A JUND-sparing ligand will bind the shared pocket less tightly, and in a disease where complete remission rates are already around 22% that trade may be unaffordable.
- If JUND liberation is intrinsic to occupying the pocket, then every compound in the class carries a built-in resistance mechanism, and combination with a JNK inhibitor becomes a class-wide requirement rather than an optional extra — with all the added toxicity that implies in an infant.
- Ranking marketed compounds on a biochemical selectivity ratio could drive a clinical preference that the biochemistry does not actually support. The ranking must be validated against durability in models before it influences anyone's prescribing.
- What is the affinity of the JUND peptide for menin, in the same assay format as the 53 nM MBM1 measurement? Without it no selectivity ratio can be quoted.
- Does menin engage other clients through the same pocket that nobody has enumerated, so that JUND is one of several liberated proteins rather than the only one?
- Is JUND liberation part of the mechanism of differentiation syndrome, given that AP-1 signalling is prominent in infant KMT2A-rearranged methylome and transcriptome analyses?
- E1moderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.paper
Menin-MLL inhibitors disrupt menin-JUND interactions as measured by quantitative mass spectrometry, increase JUND chromatin occupancy and upregulate JUND target genes, contributing to resistance; JUND knockout or JNK inhibition synergises with menin-MLL inhibition in vitro and reduces tumour burden in engrafted mice.
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 2026What this evidence cannot show
Single group, very recent, not independently replicated; the compound or compounds used are not necessarily representative of the whole class, which is exactly the gap this hypothesis targets.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- The structural premise argues against the proposal. Menin binds the MLL1 and JUND peptides in the *same deep central pocket, in the same manner* — the crystallographic result the entry cites as E3. A small molecule that occupies that pocket therefore blocks both peptides by the same steric mechanism, and the degrees of freedom available for differential sparing are limited to whatever sub-pocket contacts the two peptides make differently. Selectivity between two ligands that bind one site in one orientation is the hardest case in medicinal chemistry, not a routine optimisation. Two consequences for this entry: first, the prediction that compounds will vary in JUND displacement may be true but with a small dynamic range that a cellular assay cannot resolve; second, if separation of mandates is genuinely wanted, the structurally indicated route is not a better pocket ligand at all but an allosteric or LEDGF-surface-directed agent, which is a different hypothesis. The legal frame the entry borrows is honest about this: the remedies for a conflicted fiduciary are segregation, barriers or resignation from one mandate — none of which is achievable by sitting in the shared office. Huang J et al. 2012
- E2moderate confidence 3 of 5: One strong study, or several smaller consistent ones.review
Menin inhibitors differ in safety, QTc, cytopenia and pharmacokinetic profiles, with composite complete remission rates of 20-35% and overall response 45-65% across the class, and acquired MEN1 mutations described in 39% of post-revumenib relapses that 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 2025What this evidence cannot show
A review. The differential MEN1-mutation finding is the weakest link: revumenib has the longest follow-up and the most sequenced relapses, which alone could produce the difference.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- The class difference this entry leans on — MEN1 interface mutations after revumenib but not after ziftomenib or bleximenib — is not a demonstrated pharmacological property, and one of its readings is absence of evidence. Emergent mutations in the menin-binding site occurred in 13% of 42 patients on a revumenib-containing triplet, so interface mutation frequency tracks exposure, regimen and follow-up. Ziftomenib and bleximenib have been given to fewer patients for less time; until matched exposure and sequencing depth are reported, the class-difference claim cannot carry the weight of a compound-specific selectivity argument. Issa GC et al. 2026
- E3strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper
Crystal structures show menin binding short MLL1 or JUND peptides in the same deep central pocket in the same manner but with opposite transcriptional effects, with LEDGF engaging a distinct surface formed jointly by menin and MLL1.
The same pocket in menin binds both MLL and JUND but has opposite effects on transcription · Huang J, Gurung B, Wan B, et al. · Nature 2012What this evidence cannot show
This is the principal evidence *against* the strong form of the hypothesis and is cited here for that reason. Peptide co-crystals may nonetheless miss differences present in the full-length complexes.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- Same pocket, same binding mode, opposite transcriptional effect is the fact that makes this hypothesis hard rather than promising: if MLL1 and JUND peptides occupy the pocket in the same manner, the structural basis for a ligand that discriminates between them is not visible in the structures. LEDGF engaging a surface formed jointly by menin and MLL is the more tractable asymmetry and points at a different design. Nature 2012
- E4strong confidence 4 of 5: Replicated in peer-reviewed work by more than one group.paper
The KMT2A MBM1 peptide binds menin with Kd 53 nM by fluorescence polarisation and 72 nM by calorimetry, with Phe9 as a hot spot, providing an established assay format in which a JUND-peptide counter-screen can be run directly.
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
The JUND peptide affinity for menin is not established in the same assay and would need to be determined before a selectivity ratio can be quoted.
Evidence that argues against this (1)
- Searched for any published head-to-head measurement of JUND displacement across revumenib, ziftomenib, bleximenib, enzomenib or icovamenib — the exact quantity this hypothesis says varies compound-to-compound. None was found; the single study reporting menin-JUND disruption by menin-MLL inhibitors does not resolve it by compound. So the hypothesis is not contradicted, it is unmeasured, and `ana-menin-partner-selectivity-profiling` is measuring something nobody has measured. Recorded so the absence is known to have been checked rather than assumed. Q12-analogy-counter (search record) 2026
feasibility objection: MLL1 and JUND peptides occupy the same deep central pocket in the same manner, so a pocket-occupying ligand has little structural room to spare one mandate
- proposed by →Fiduciary conflict of interest — law does not remove a conflicted agent, it separates the mandates
generated by segregation of duties
predicts compound-specific JUND liberation explains part of the revumenib resistance profile
predicts a measurably different JUND displacement ratio from revumenib
selectivity, if it exists, lives in differences within this pocket
structural comparison, Boltz co-folding and a two-peptide counter-screen specification
the structures that raise the inseparability problem are the ones a partner-selective ligand would have to defeat
- ← related toThe same pocket suppresses JUND: menin inhibition's unmeasured endocrine liability in infants
a JUND-sparing ligand would be the selectivity axis this risk calls for; the structures suggest both peptides bind in the same manner, so it may be impossible
whether compounds can occupy the pocket without liberating JUND
the G1 gate builds the assay pair this hypothesis needs
a compound-specific base-editor screen answers whether a ligand's resistance spectrum is narrow or broad
a measured 8 A spread across the class at one residue is the concrete selectivity axis that hypothesis predicts