Q-omics provides the consensus-scored ANO1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. ANO1 expression is associated with patient survival in 17 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, ANO1 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, ANO1 RNA expression shows 17,716 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRP, KIRC, and THYM as cancer lineages where ANO1 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 ANO1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes ANO1 survival associations across molecular data types. ANO1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (17), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible ANO1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High ANO1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, UVM, PAAD and HNSC, but favorable associations in UCEC and LIHC. The KIRP Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRP as the clearest survival context for ANO1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes ANO1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for ANO1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. ANO1 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and LIHC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, BLCA, HNSC and COAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher ANO1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.651, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with ANO1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, ANO1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, ANO1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Lymphoma and STOMACH.
