Q-omics provides the consensus-scored C1orf210 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. C1orf210 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, C1orf210 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, C1orf210 RNA expression shows 16,174 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and TGCT as cancer lineages where C1orf210 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 C1orf210 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes C1orf210 survival associations across molecular data types. C1orf210 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (1) 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 C1orf210 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High C1orf210 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, but favorable associations in KIRC, KIRP, UVM, UCS and MESO. 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 C1orf210 RNA expression.
This table summarizes C1orf210 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for C1orf210. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. C1orf210 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KIRC, HNSC, KIRP, THCA and KICH. The COAD box plot shows higher C1orf210 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.746, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with C1orf210 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, C1orf210 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with TGCT recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, C1orf210 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in CNS and LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD.
