Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CCAR2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CCAR2 expression is associated with patient survival in 19 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CCAR2 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, CCAR2 protein abundance shows 20,539 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight MESO, KIRP, and GBM as cancer lineages where CCAR2 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 CCAR2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CCAR2 survival associations across molecular data types. CCAR2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (19), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CCAR2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CCAR2 expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, ACC, KICH and LIHC, but favorable associations in HNSC and THYM. The MESO Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify MESO as the clearest survival context for CCAR2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CCAR2 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in KIRP for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CCAR2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CCAR2 shows higher tumor expression in KIRP, STAD, LIHC, HNSC, CHOL and UCEC. The KIRP box plot shows higher CCAR2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.583, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CCAR2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CCAR2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CCAR2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
