Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CCPG1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CCPG1 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CCPG1 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, CCPG1 protein abundance shows 21,271 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight UVM, LUSC, and PDAC as cancer lineages where CCPG1 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 CCPG1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CCPG1 survival associations across molecular data types. CCPG1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (5) 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 CCPG1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CCPG1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, STAD, UCEC and LGG, but favorable associations in SKCM and PRAD. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for CCPG1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CCPG1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CCPG1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CCPG1 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC, KICH, THCA, COAD and BLCA and higher tumor expression in CHOL. The LUSC box plot shows higher CCPG1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.665, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CCPG1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CCPG1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PDAC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CCPG1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in URINARY_TRACT and BONE.
