cerebellar degeneration related protein 2Genealiases: CDR62 · Yo
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CDR2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CDR2 expression is associated with patient survival in 27 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CDR2 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, CDR2 RNA expression shows 20,359 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UVM, and HNSC as cancer lineages where CDR2 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 CDR2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CDR2 survival associations across molecular data types. CDR2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (27), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CDR2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CDR2 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, STAD, LGG, DLBC and ESCA, but favorable associations in SKCM. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for CDR2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CDR2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CDR2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CDR2 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRP, COAD, LUAD and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher CDR2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.430, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CDR2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CDR2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CDR2 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 LARGE_INTESTINE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
