BRF2 general transcription factor IIIB subunitGenealiases: BRFU · TFIIIB50
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored BRF2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. BRF2 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, BRF2 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, BRF2 protein abundance shows 23,546 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, HNSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where BRF2 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 BRF2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes BRF2 survival associations across molecular data types. BRF2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (9). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible BRF2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High BRF2 expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO and PAAD, but favorable associations in KIRC, HNSC, LUAD and SCLC. 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 BRF2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes BRF2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 9. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for BRF2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. BRF2 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, LIHC, LUSC, COAD and BRCA. The HNSC box plot shows higher BRF2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.072, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with BRF2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, BRF2 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, BRF2 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 BREAST and LARGE_INTESTINE.
