Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CDIP1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CDIP1 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CDIP1 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Additionally, CDIP1 protein abundance shows 33,327 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UVM, BLCA, and GBM as cancer lineages where CDIP1 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 CDIP1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CDIP1 survival associations across molecular data types. CDIP1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CDIP1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CDIP1 expression shows unfavorable associations in ESCA and SKCM, but favorable associations in UVM, PAAD, LUAD and HNSC. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for CDIP1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CDIP1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in BLCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CDIP1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CDIP1 shows lower tumor expression in BLCA, THCA, COAD, LUAD and UCEC and higher tumor expression in LIHC. The BLCA box plot shows higher CDIP1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.479, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CDIP1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CDIP1 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, CDIP1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BONE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD.
