Cited by 213Acute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 15 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Subtype-specific 3D genome alteration in acute myeloid leukaemia

Open access

Abstract

Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) represents a set of heterogeneous myeloid malignancies, and hallmarks include mutations in epigenetic modifiers, transcription factors and kinases 1 – 5 . The extent to which mutations in AML drive alterations in chromatin 3D structure and contribute to myeloid transformation is unclear. Here we use Hi-C and whole-genome sequencing to analyse 25 samples from patients with AML and 7 samples from healthy donors. Recurrent and subtype-specific alterations in A/B compartments, topologically associating domains and chromatin loops were identified. RNA sequencing, ATAC with sequencing and CUT&Tag for CTCF, H3K27ac and H3K27me3 in the same AML samples also revealed extensive and recurrent AML-specific promoter–enhancer and promoter–silencer loops. We validated the role of repressive loops on their target genes by CRISPR deletion and interference. Structural variation-induced enhancer-hijacking and silencer-hijacking events were further identified in AML samples. Hijacked enhancers play a part in AML cell growth, as demonstrated by CRISPR screening, whereas hijacked silencers have a downregulating role, as evidenced by CRISPR-interference-mediated de-repression. Finally, whole-genome bisulfite sequencing of 20 AML and normal samples revealed the delicate relationship between DNA methylation, CTCF binding and 3D genome structure. Treatment of AML cells with a DNA hypomethylating agent and triple knockdown of DNMT1 , DNMT3A and DNMT3B enabled the manipulation of DNA methylation to revert 3D genome organization and gene expression. Overall, this study provides a resource for leukaemia studies and highlights the role of repressive loops and hijacked cis elements in human diseases. Extensive genomic analyses of the chromatin architecture in acute myeloid leukaemia reveals several characteristics, including subtype-specific distal enhancers and silencers, that may represent new anticancer therapeutic targets.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study maps 3D genome organization in primary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and identifies subtype-specific A/B compartment switches, TAD alterations, chromatin loops, and architectural stripes. It further shows that promoter-silencer loops and structural-variant-induced enhancer/silencer hijacking contribute to gene dysregulation, and that DNA hypomethylating treatment or DNMT triple knockdown can partially reverse AML-associated chromatin topology.

Key findings

  • In 25 AML and 7 healthy donor samples, Hi-C identified recurrent and subtype-specific 3D alterations: on average 3.2% A-to-B and 2.9% B-to-A compartment switches versus HSPC; 391 of 622 curated COSMIC cancer/AML-related genes fell in altered TADs in at least one sample, with >100 recurrent.
  • AML-specific loops averaged ~200 per AML sample; 42.4% were promoter-enhancer (P-E) and 11.2% promoter-silencer (P-S), with P-S loops accounting for 9.2% of all loops and averaging 169 kb. CRISPR deletion of an RTTN silencer increased RTTN expression 3-fold (p=5E-5), and CRISPRi de-repression of IKZF2-linked silencers increased IKZF2 expression >35-fold (P=0.00017).
  • SV-induced neo-loops included enhancer hijacking (17.2% of neo-loops) and silencer hijacking (5.7%); CRISPRi screening of 74 neo P-E loops in Kasumi-1 cells identified 14 sgRNAs targeting 13 enhancers as significantly depleted, and hijacked silencer de-repression increased EXD1 and ALG10 expression by 5.97-fold and 2.70-fold, respectively.
  • 5-AZA treatment reduced global methylation from 74% to 39%; 31.6% of AML-specific loops dissociated after treatment versus 2.5% of shared loops, and 55% of A-to-B altered compartments in an AML cell line were reversed to the A compartment.

Methods

  • Primary samples: in situ Hi-C and RNA-seq in 32 primary samples (25 AML, 4 normal CD34+ HSPC, 3 PBMC), with ~600 million paired-end reads per Hi-C library; WGS at ~40x in 25 AML; ATAC-seq and CUT&Tag for H3K27ac, H3K27me3, and CTCF; WGBS in 18 AML and 2 PBMC at ~30X; 199 total genomic datasets.
  • Functional validation: 4C-seq, 3D DNA FISH, HiChIP for H3K27me3, CRISPR deletion, CRISPRi/CRISPR activation, luciferase reporter assays, and a CRISPRi screen in Kasumi-1 cells; cell-line experiments in Kasumi-1, THP-1, HL60, U937, and K562.
  • Perturbation: U937 cells treated with 0.5 μM 5-AZA for 12 days or subjected to inducible DNMT3A/3B/1 triple knockdown, followed by WGBS and Hi-C; computational analyses included Hi-C compartment/TAD/loop calling, NeoLoopFinder, stripe detection, and differential loop/compartment analyses.

Limitations

  • The paper states that future experiments should aim to dissolve chromatin interactions without changing local chromatin status at cis-regulatory elements, and that phenotypic effects need deeper study, with animal models desirable.
  • Evident from the text: the primary AML cohort is moderate in size (25 samples), and subtype-specific conclusions rest on small subgroups; functional validation of loops and hijacking is largely performed in AML cell lines rather than in vivo.
  • Evident from the text: although the authors report that <4.8% of AML-specific loops were in CNV regions, structural variation and copy-number effects remain potential confounders in 3D genome analyses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-022-05365-x

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

114 Own result · 24 Own method · 11 Own interpretation · 7 Not checked yet · 3 Partly supported · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 10 references — free account

Show all 104 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
58 of 58
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AML is characterized by a global aberrant DNA methylation profile.

    “AML is also characterized by a global aberrant DNA methylation profile.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Genome-wide enhancer hijacking in AML has not been studied.

    “However, genome-wide enhancer hijacking in AML have not been studied.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 78 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spracklin, G. et al. Heterochromatin diversity modulates genome compartmentalization and loop extrusion barriers. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.05.455340 (2021). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Xu, J., Song, F., Lyu, H., Kobayashi, M., Zhang, B., Zhao, Z., Hou, Y., Wang, X., Luan, Y., Jia, B., Stasiak, L., Wong, J. H.-Y., Wang, Q., Jin, Q., Jin, Q., Fu, Y., Yang, H., Hardison, R. C., Dovat, S., Platanias, L. C., Diao, Y., Yang, Y., Yamada, T., Viny, A. D., Levine, R. L., Claxton, D., Broach, J. R., Zheng, H., & Yue, F.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Penn State Cancer Institute (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zheng, Hong
  • Yue, Feng
Venue
Nature
Published
2022-10-26
Volume
611
Issue
7935
Pages
387-398
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4307659092
Cited by
208
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 1
FWCI
31.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRG 117-15, P30 CA008748)
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (CA008748, P30 CA008748, NIH P30CA008748)
  • Edward P. Evans Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (CA008748, NIH P30 CA008748)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (U01DA053691)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG011207, R01HG009906)
  • National Cancer Institute (NIH P30 CA008748, R01CA213912, CA008748, U54CA143869, U01CA200060, R01CA216421, K08CA215317, P30CA008748, R35CA197594, P30CA014236)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM124820)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R24DK106766)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
acute myeloid leukemia, 3D genome organization, chromatin looping, A/B compartments, topologically associating domains, enhancer hijacking, CTCF binding, DNA methylation, DNMT1, DNMT3A, DNMT3B, hypomethylating agents, leukemia subtypes, CRISPR interference, CRISPR screen, cancer therapy targets
MeSH terms
CCCTC-Binding Factor, Chromatin, DNA (Cytosine-5-)-Methyltransferases, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Humans, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Sulfites, Reproducibility of Results, Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, Genome, Human, Gene Expression Regulation, Leukemic, Sequence Analysis, DNA Methylation, Gene Silencing, CRISPR-Cas Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review