Q-omics provides the consensus-scored ANO6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. ANO6 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in CESC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, ANO6 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, ANO6 protein abundance shows 22,749 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight CESC, KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where ANO6 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 ANO6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes ANO6 survival associations across molecular data types. ANO6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible ANO6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High ANO6 expression shows unfavorable associations in CESC, UVM, MESO, HNSC and LGG, but favorable associations in KIRC. The CESC 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 CESC as the clearest survival context for ANO6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes ANO6 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 7. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for ANO6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. ANO6 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, UCEC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, HNSC and COAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher ANO6 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.842, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with ANO6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, ANO6 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, ANO6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
