Q-omics provides the consensus-scored C1QBP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. C1QBP expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, C1QBP is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, C1QBP protein abundance shows 23,262 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight UVM, COAD, and LSCC as cancer lineages where C1QBP 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 C1QBP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes C1QBP survival associations across molecular data types. C1QBP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (4) 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 C1QBP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High C1QBP expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, LUAD, LIHC, CHOL and KICH, but favorable associations in READ. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for C1QBP RNA expression.
This table summarizes C1QBP 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 COAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for C1QBP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. C1QBP shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in COAD, STAD, HNSC, LUSC and LUAD. The COAD box plot shows higher C1QBP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.164, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with C1QBP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, C1QBP 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, C1QBP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
