Back

Mutation-specific impairment of TET2 and DNMT3A enzymatic activity predicts clonal hematopoiesis disease risk

Pershad, Y.; Zhao, K.; Van Amburg, J. C.; Corty, R. W.; Parker, A. C.; Silver, A. J.; Almadani, Y. F.; Kishtagari, A.; Hodges, E.; Savona, M. R.; Heimlich, J. B.; Bick, A. G.

2026-04-05 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.04.03.26350108 medRxiv
Show abstract

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) driven by somatic mutations in TET2 and DNMT3A is present in >10% of adults over 60 and confers substantial risk for hematologic malignancy and cardiovascular disease, yet the majority of patients with CHIP do not progress to disease. Analyzing 1,020,538 individuals across three biobanks (UK Biobank, All of Us, BioVU), we show that a discrete subset of enzymatically disruptive mutations, TET2 loss-of-function variants and the DNMT3A R882 hotspot, account for the majority of clinical risk in these genes and exhibit the strongest clonal fitness advantage. Because DNMT3A and TET2 encode enzymes that modulate DNA methylation, we reasoned that peripheral blood methylation patterns should reflect the functional impact of individual mutations, enabling a direct readout of enzymatic dysfunction in CHIP patients. We developed and validated methylation-based activity scores for TET2 and DNMT3A as patient specific biomarkers that quantify enzymatic activity. These scores capture functional heterogeneity across mutation subtypes, predict disease risk comparably to clinical risk scores such as the Clonal Hematopoiesis Risk Score and the AHA PREVENT cardiovascular risk model. Integrating the activity score with the clinical models substantially improves prediction of incident cytopenia, myeloid neoplasm, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings establish that TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP pathogenicity is proportional to the degree of enzymatic disruption conferred by specific variants, and nominate methylation-based activity scores as a functional biomarker for individualized CHIP risk stratification and monitoring therapeutic response.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
10.3%
2
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 3%
9.9%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.9%
4
Cell
370 papers in training set
Top 1%
9.0%
5
Cancer Discovery
61 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.2%
6
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
7
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
9
Journal of Experimental Medicine
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
10
Developmental Cell
168 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.0%
11
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.0%
12
Blood
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.8%
13
Leukemia
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
14
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.9%
16
Nature Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
17
Cell Stem Cell
57 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.9%
18
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Haematologica
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
20
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
21
Nature Immunology
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.3%
23
Cell Metabolism
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
24
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
25
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
26
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.9%
27
Nature Metabolism
56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
29
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
30
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.7%