Q-omics provides the consensus-scored BBIP1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. BBIP1 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, BBIP1 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, BBIP1 RNA expression shows 21,795 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight ACC, and THCA as cancer lineages where BBIP1 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 BBIP1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes BBIP1 survival associations across molecular data types. BBIP1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (1) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible BBIP1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High BBIP1 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KIRP, KICH and HNSC, but favorable associations in LGG and UCS. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for BBIP1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes BBIP1 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for BBIP1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. BBIP1 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, KICH, LUSC and UCEC and higher tumor expression in LIHC and HNSC. The THCA box plot shows higher BBIP1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.750, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with BBIP1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, BBIP1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, BBIP1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD and BLOOD_Leukemia.
