Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CACNG5 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CACNG5 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CACNG5 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, CACNG5 RNA expression shows 13,865 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UVM, and COAD as cancer lineages where CACNG5 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 CACNG5 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CACNG5 survival associations across molecular data types. CACNG5 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (4) 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 CACNG5 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CACNG5 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, ACC, LGG, READ and LIHC, but favorable associations in OV. 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 CACNG5 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CACNG5 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CACNG5. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CACNG5 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KICH and READ and higher tumor expression in BRCA, HNSC and LUAD. The COAD box plot shows higher CACNG5 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.125, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CACNG5 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CACNG5 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CACNG5 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Myeloma and LUNG_SCLC.
