Back

Translating multi-omics complexity into sparse prognostic biomarkers for multiple myeloma

Obermayer, B.; Benary, M.; Kroenke, J.; Mertins, P.; Beule, D.

2026-08-21 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.08.21.746155 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) exhibits profound molecular heterogeneity, yet current risk stratification relies on cytogenetics or single-omics signatures that often fail to capture cross-layer regulatory complexity. We re-analyzed a multi-omics dataset integrating copy-number, transcriptomic, proteomic, and phosphoproteomic data to dissect how common genomic driver alterations propagate through the molecular cascade. Supervised classification demonstrated that downstream layers, particularly the proteome and phosphoproteome, classify genomic events more accurately than primary genomic or transcriptomic data. Intriguingly, trans-acting features alone were sufficient for classification, indicating that while direct dosage effects manifest at the RNA level, downstream network responses dominate the proteomic state. Multi-omics factor analysis (MOFA2) identified a continuous latent axis predicting progression-free and overall survival independent of R-ISS. This factor captured a gain(1q)/del(13q) axis modulated by immune infiltration and NSD2 expression, integrating variance across all four modalities. To enable clinical translation, we derived sparse, single-modality proxies using elastic net regression. An RNA proxy faithfully recapitulated the multi-omic factor and validated independently in published microarray and RNAseq cohorts, demonstrating robust prognostic utility across treatment eras. These findings reveal that multi-omics integration uncovers hidden prognostic axes obscured by single-omics analyses, and that sparse proxies can bridge the gap between complex discovery and clinical implementation.

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.