Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CDH4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CDH4 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in SCLC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CDH4 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, CDH4 RNA expression shows 14,208 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight SCLC, THCA, and KIRP as cancer lineages where CDH4 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 CDH4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CDH4 survival associations across molecular data types. CDH4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (6) 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 CDH4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CDH4 expression shows unfavorable associations in SCLC, CESC, ACC and LGG, but favorable associations in KIRP and KIRC. The SCLC 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 SCLC as the clearest survival context for CDH4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CDH4 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 1. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CDH4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CDH4 shows lower tumor expression in UCEC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in THCA, KIRC, HNSC and KIRP. The THCA box plot shows higher CDH4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.244, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CDH4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CDH4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CDH4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
