Q-omics provides the consensus-scored AMN profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. AMN expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, AMN is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, AMN RNA expression shows 15,306 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and LSCC as cancer lineages where AMN shows reproducible signals across survival, tumor–normal expression, and patient cross-omics analyses.
Every result is evaluated using two consensus scores. Sampling consensus measures how consistently a finding is reproduced within a cancer lineage across different conditions. Lineage consensus measures how broadly the result is shared across cancer types, distinguishing pan-cancer signals from lineage-specific patterns.
Premium analyses for AMN — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes AMN survival associations across molecular data types. AMN RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible AMN RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High AMN expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM and ACC, but favorable associations in KIRC, HNSC, KIRP and LUSC. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for AMN RNA expression.
This table summarizes AMN tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for AMN. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. AMN shows lower tumor expression in KICH, COAD, THCA and READ and higher tumor expression in LUSC and BLCA. The KICH box plot shows higher AMN RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −4.207, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with AMN in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, AMN shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, AMN RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BONE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in URINARY_TRACT and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
