- This study investigated genomic and transcriptional factors driving myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) progression to secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML).
- Researchers profiled CD34+ bone marrow cells from 86 patients (ChIP-seq) and 357 patients (RNA-seq) in a prospective cohort.
- Unsupervised clustering identified a low-risk MDS subset with high-risk profiles, characterized by increased SRSF2 mutations and PU.1 occupancy.
- The authors concluded that specific epigenetic factors predispose low-risk MDS patients to progression into high-risk MDS and sAML.
- Clinically, this subset showed greater susceptibility to infections, cardiovascular events, and significantly reduced overall survival.
Understanding Progression Risk in Myelodysplastic Syndromes
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) present a significant clinical challenge due to their heterogeneous nature and inherent risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [1]. While prognostic scoring systems help guide management, the clinical course remains unpredictable for many, with some patients classified as lower-risk experiencing unexpectedly rapid disease advancement [2, 3, 4]. Current therapeutic strategies range from supportive care, including erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, to more intensive treatments like hypomethylating agents or allogeneic stem cell transplantation for higher-risk disease [5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. A critical gap in care is the inability to identify, at diagnosis, those lower-risk patients who harbor molecular drivers of progression. Doing so could enable more precise risk stratification and the timely application of interventions to prevent or delay transformation to secondary AML [10].
Profiling Genomic Activity in MDS Progression
To uncover the molecular mechanisms driving disease advancement, researchers performed a detailed genomic analysis of CD34+ bone marrow progenitor cells, the cellular origin of myelodysplastic syndromes. The investigation used two complementary techniques to create a comprehensive picture of gene activity. First, they employed H3K27ac ChIP-seq (chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing for histone H3 lysine 27 acetylation), a method that maps the active regulatory regions, or genomic "on-switches," across the DNA of 86 patients. Second, they used RNA-seq (RNA sequencing) in a larger cohort of 357 patients to measure the expression levels of genes, revealing which of those switches were functionally leading to transcription. This dual approach allowed the investigators to connect the regulatory landscape to its functional output, providing a clearer view of the active biological pathways. The initial analysis confirmed distinct patterns of genomic region activation and transcriptional regulation across the different clinical stages of low-risk MDS, high-risk MDS, and secondary AML.
Identifying a High-Risk Subset Within Low-Risk MDS
The investigation's most salient finding emerged from a deeper analysis using unsupervised clustering, a machine-learning technique that groups patients based on shared biological patterns rather than predefined clinical categories. This data-driven approach unexpectedly identified a distinct subset of patients who, despite being classified as low-risk MDS, possessed regulatory and transcriptional profiles remarkably similar to those of patients with high-risk MDS and secondary AML. This suggests that a high-risk molecular signature can be present long before it becomes clinically apparent. Further analysis revealed this subgroup is characterized by the activity of the transcription factor PU.1 at genomic regions linked to immune and inflammatory responses. This molecular state was associated with increased T-cell and natural killer (NK) cell activation and a higher frequency of SRSF2 mutations, a known alteration in a critical RNA splicing factor. These findings provide a specific molecular fingerprint for a subset of low-risk patients with a more aggressive underlying biology.
Clinical Implications for Patient Outcomes
The molecular signature identifying this high-risk subgroup within the low-risk MDS population was directly associated with poorer clinical outcomes. Patients in this cohort demonstrated a greater susceptibility to infections, suggesting the observed immune activation reflects a dysregulated and ineffective response rather than enhanced protection. They also experienced a greater incidence of cardiovascular events, pointing to systemic inflammation or other off-target effects of the underlying pathology. Most critically for prognosis, these patients had an elevated risk of disease progression to high-risk MDS and secondary AML. This aggressive disease course translated into a significantly reduced overall survival. These results underscore that a patient's clinical risk score may not fully capture their biological risk. Identifying this molecular profile at diagnosis could allow for more accurate patient stratification, potentially guiding earlier or more intensive monitoring and therapeutic intervention for individuals whose disease is poised to advance.
PU.1 as a Potential Therapeutic Target
The central role of PU.1 in defining this high-risk subset prompted the researchers to investigate it as a potential therapeutic target. Functional laboratory studies confirmed that PU.1 inhibition suppresses MDS cell proliferation. Furthermore, targeting PU.1 also suppresses MDS cell clonogenicity, which is the ability of a single cancer cell to form a colony and a key driver of disease maintenance and relapse. The mechanism appears to be direct: the studies showed that impaired PU.1 binding inhibits the activation of key transcriptional programs involved in disease advancement. Collectively, these findings move beyond correlation to suggest a causal link, identifying a specific epigenetic factor that appears to predispose some low-risk MDS patients to progression. Because PU.1 is a druggable transcription factor, these insights may pave the way for targeted therapies designed to interrupt this specific pathway, potentially preventing or delaying transformation to secondary AML in a molecularly defined patient population.
References
1. Vallelonga V, Gandolfi F, Zampini M, et al. PU.1-activated genomic regions define low-risk MDS subsets characterized by immune dysregulation and disease progression.. Blood. 2026. doi:10.1182/blood.2025030760
2. Zeidan AM, Giri S, DeVeaux M, Ballas SK, Duong VH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of iron chelation therapy on overall survival and disease progression in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.. Annals of hematology. 2019. doi:10.1007/s00277-018-3539-7
3. Jin J, Hu C, Yu M, et al. Prognostic value of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes: a retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis.. PloS one. 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100206
4. Ball B, Strickland SA, Morrison B, et al. A first-in-human phase 1 Study of cbx-250, a TCR-mimetic bispecific T cell engager targeting CG1/ HLA-a*02:01 in patients with relapsed or refractory AML, HR-MDS, or CMML (CROSSCHECK-001) (Trial in Progress). Blood. 2025. doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3430
5. Aziz N, Nabi W, Umer H, et al. Impact of Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists on Platelet Transfusion Requirements in Myelodysplastic Syndromes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2025.07.016
6. Oliva EN, Riva M, Niscola P, et al. Eltrombopag for Low-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes With Thrombocytopenia: Interim Results of a Phase II, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial (EQOL-MDS).. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2023. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.02699
7. Platzbecker U, Santini V, Fenaux P, et al. Imetelstat in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have relapsed or are refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (IMerge): a multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.. Lancet (London, England). 2024. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01724-5
8. Gore SD, Fenaux P, Santini V, et al. A multivariate analysis of the relationship between response and survival among patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes treated within azacitidine or conventional care regimens in the randomized AZA-001 trial.. Haematologica. 2013. doi:10.3324/haematol.2012.074831
9. Garcia-Manero G, Santini V, Zeidan AM, et al. Long-Term Transfusion Independence with Luspatercept Versus Epoetin Alfa in Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent-Naive, Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes in the COMMANDS Trial.. Advances in therapy. 2025. doi:10.1007/s12325-025-03208-5
10. Döhner H, Estey EH, Grimwade D, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2016. doi:10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196