Abstract
Background/Objectives Many myeloid malignancies are defined by recurrent structural variants (SVs) and copy-number alterations (CNAs) under the current World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) frameworks. Detecting these abnormalities typically requires several standard-of-care (SOC) assays, each with its own blind spots, and then laboratories and clinicians are left to piece the results together. Genome mapping has emerged as a mainstream technology with the potential to serve as a high-resolution alternative to several standard-of-care cytogenetic assays such as karyotyping (KT), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or chromosomal microarray (CMA). Our laboratory at Augusta University has published numerous publications on the analytical and clinical utility of optical genome mapping (OGM) as a first-line assay for hematological malignancies. Electronic genome mapping (EGM) pursues the same goal with an electronic rather than optical readout. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the performance and utility of EGM as a valuable tool to detect clinically relevant SVs and CNAs found by SOC testing. Cytogenomic characterization of hematologic malignancies commonly requires multiple complementary assays, including karyotyping, FISH, and chromosomal microarray, each with distinct analytical limitations. Electronic genome mapping (EGM) provides genome-wide interrogation of structural variants and copy-number alterations using electronic single-molecule detection. We evaluated the feasibility and analytical performance of EGM in previously characterized myeloid malignancies.
Methods EGM was performed on the Nabsys OhmX platform using five previously characterized bone marrow aspirates from cases with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). EGM calls were compared with findings from karyotyping (KT), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and OGM.
Results All five samples passed quality control, with contig N50 values ranging from 1.8 to 3.8 Mb and more than 90% of reference labels represented in the assembled contigs. EGM detected every SOC-reported abnormality including two t(9;22)(q34.12;q11.23)/BCR::ABL1 rearrangements, trisomy 4, trisomy 21, and monosomy 7. In the most complex case, EGM resolved a del(20q) reported by KT and FISH into an intrachromosomal fusion, fus(20;20)(q11.21;q13.12), showing not only what was lost but where the chromosome rejoined. Like OGM, EGM identified an approximately 1.8 Mb loss at 7q22.1 involving 45 of genes of which only CUX1 is associated with cancer. This 7q loss was not detected by KT or FISH. Interestingly, EGM also detected the KMT2A-PTD variant previously detected by OGM. Collectively, EGM demonstrated 100% concordance (6/6 SOC-reported abnormalities; 9/9 OGM calls).
Conclusions In this pilot study on five hematological malignancy specimens, EGM matched SOC and OGM across translocations, aneuploidies, insertions and deletions, including BCR::ABL1 rearrangements in both AML and CML, and added high-resolution breakpoint detail beyond karyotype resolution. These results support larger studies across more subtypes to establish EGM as a first-line genome-wide cytogenomic tool for hematological malignancies.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Kolhe reports a grant from PGDx; personal fees and non-financial support from Illumina; non-financial and travel support from Agilent; personal fees and non-financial support from Agena; and personal fees, honoraria, and travel support from Roche, Novartis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, 1Cell.AI, and Actorius, as well as grants and personal fees from Bionano. AC, MG, YZ, are salaried employees of Nabsys 2.0, LLC. SS is a salaried employee of Hitachi Hightech America. All other authors have no competing interests.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The samples used and processed in this study were collected under a study approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB #00000150, HAC IRB #611298, 4 April 2018) at Augusta University, GA, USA
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
8. Data Availability Statement
All the data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.





