centriole, cilia and spindle associated proteinGenealiases: C1orf96 · CSAP
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CCSAP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CCSAP expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CCSAP is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Additionally, CCSAP RNA expression shows 22,931 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight ACC, BLCA, and GBM as cancer lineages where CCSAP 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 CCSAP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CCSAP survival associations across molecular data types. CCSAP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CCSAP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CCSAP expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, MESO, KICH, KIRP, LIHC and KIRC. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for CCSAP RNA expression.
This table summarizes CCSAP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 16, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CCSAP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CCSAP shows higher tumor expression in BLCA, HNSC, KIRC, LIHC, COAD and STAD. The BLCA box plot shows higher CCSAP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.847, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CCSAP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CCSAP 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, CCSAP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in KIDNEY and LARGE_INTESTINE.
