Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CDH6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CDH6 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in STAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CDH6 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, CDH6 protein abundance shows 25,492 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Together, these results highlight STAD, HNSC, and LUAD as cancer lineages where CDH6 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 CDH6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CDH6 survival associations across molecular data types. CDH6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (12). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CDH6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CDH6 expression shows unfavorable associations in STAD, UVM, BLCA and MESO, but favorable associations in KIRP and KIRC. The STAD 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 STAD as the clearest survival context for CDH6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CDH6 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 9. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CDH6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CDH6 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRC, THCA, COAD and KIRP. The HNSC box plot shows higher CDH6 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.945, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CDH6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CDH6 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LUAD recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CDH6 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 BLOOD_Lymphoma and LARGE_INTESTINE.
