Back

Hierarchical classification of hematologic malignancies using epigenetic and genetic information

Schönung, M.; Türe, M.; Lajer, P.; Renders, S.; Rausch, T.; Steinicke, T. L.; Dolnik, A.; Sträng, E.; Oak, M. S.; Heilmann, J.; Roth, K.; Katzenstein, L.; Rohde, C.; Sollier, E.; Horak, P.; Sauer, T.; Strefford, J. C.; Duran-Ferrer, M.; Oakes, C. C.; Martin-Subero, J. I.; Germing, U.; Dworzak, M.; Catala, A.; Flotho, C.; Niemeyer, C. M.; Döhner, H.; Hovestadt, V.; Fröhling, S.; Schlenk, R. F.; Heidel, F. H.; Korbel, J.; Gerhäuser, C.; Hartmann, M.; Müller-Tidow, C.; Lutsik, P.; Hundemer, M.; Erlacher, M.; Bullinger, L.; Plass, C.; Lipka, D. B.

2026-07-09 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.07.02.735835 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Molecular testing in hematology requires different assays for disease subgroup identification, risk stratification and selection of appropriate treatment regimens. Yet, molecular tests are not necessarily standardized between diagnostic laboratories, resulting in varying turnaround times and potentially divergent results. To resolve this issue and enable single-assay molecular testing, we have developed a hierarchical classification framework that combines epigenetic and genetic data from whole genome nanopore sequencing (WGNS) with machine learning to determine disease entities, epigenetic subgroups (epitypes) and genetic aberrations in hematopoietic neoplasms. We curated DNA methylation data from 5,420 samples and trained a classifier allowing entity-level diagnostics featuring 21 conditions, including healthy controls, acute and chronic myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms. This classifier was subsequently combined with entity-specific epitype classifiers predicting 44 therapeutically or prognostically relevant states, followed by integration of genetic data. Benchmarking of the combined (epi-)genetic testing strategy using WGNS confirmed high accuracy in the detection of diagnostic groups and risk stratification, and identified diagnosis-defining molecular alterations that were not reported by standard-of-care work-up.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
2
HemaSphere
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
3
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 21%
7.8%
4
Leukemia
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
5
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.5%
6
Blood
74 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
7
Cytometry Part A
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
9
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
10
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 15%
2.4%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.4%
12
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
Nature Cancer
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
14
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
15
Blood Cancer Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
Blood Advances
62 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
17
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.5%
18
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
19
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
20
EMBO Molecular Medicine
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.1%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
23
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
25
Nature Genetics
286 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
26
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
27
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
28
npj Systems Biology and Applications
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
Experimental Hematology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
30
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%