Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CCDC8 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CCDC8 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UCS. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CCDC8 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CCDC8 RNA expression shows 16,504 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight UCS, KIRC, and TGCT as cancer lineages where CCDC8 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 CCDC8 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CCDC8 survival associations across molecular data types. CCDC8 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (6) 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 CCDC8 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CCDC8 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, LGG, SKCM, LUSC and BLCA, but favorable associations in UCS. The UCS Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UCS as the clearest survival context for CCDC8 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CCDC8 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CCDC8. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CCDC8 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, THCA, UCEC, BRCA and LUAD and higher tumor expression in HNSC. The KIRC box plot shows higher CCDC8 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.316, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CCDC8 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CCDC8 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, CCDC8 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 BLOOD_Myeloma and SOFT_TISSUE.
