Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CEMIP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CEMIP expression is associated with patient survival in 27 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UCEC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CEMIP is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, CEMIP RNA expression shows 19,297 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UCEC, COAD, and UVM as cancer lineages where CEMIP 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 CEMIP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CEMIP survival associations across molecular data types. CEMIP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (27), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CEMIP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CEMIP expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, UVM, KIRP, BLCA and BRCA, but favorable associations in UCEC. The UCEC 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 UCEC as the clearest survival context for CEMIP RNA expression.
This table summarizes CEMIP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CEMIP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CEMIP shows higher tumor expression in COAD, LUAD, STAD, BLCA, HNSC and LIHC. The COAD box plot shows higher CEMIP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +4.984, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CEMIP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CEMIP 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, CEMIP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Leukemia.
