Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CELF6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CELF6 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CELF6 is differentially expressed in 5, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, CELF6 RNA expression shows 17,854 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight BLCA, KICH, and UVM as cancer lineages where CELF6 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 CELF6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CELF6 survival associations across molecular data types. CELF6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CELF6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CELF6 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM and KIRC, but favorable associations in BLCA, PAAD, BRCA and UCS. The BLCA Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .003). Together, the overview and detailed table identify BLCA as the clearest survival context for CELF6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CELF6 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 5, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CELF6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CELF6 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and LUSC and higher tumor expression in LIHC, CHOL and KIRC. The KICH box plot shows higher CELF6 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.080, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CELF6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CELF6 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, CELF6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LIVER, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
