Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CDO1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CDO1 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, CDO1 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CDO1 RNA expression shows 19,393 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and LUAD as cancer lineages where CDO1 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 CDO1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CDO1 survival associations across molecular data types. CDO1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CDO1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CDO1 expression shows favorable associations in UVM, LIHC, LUAD, HNSC, SKCM and BRCA. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for CDO1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CDO1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CDO1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CDO1 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, LUAD, KICH, KIRP, BLCA and COAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher CDO1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.793, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CDO1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CDO1 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, CDO1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and SKIN.
