centrosomal protein 162Genealiases: C6orf84 · KIAA1009 · QN1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CEP162 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CEP162 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CEP162 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, CEP162 RNA expression shows 20,927 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight LIHC, KICH, and THYM as cancer lineages where CEP162 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 CEP162 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CEP162 survival associations across molecular data types. CEP162 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CEP162 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CEP162 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC, KICH and LGG, but favorable associations in SKCM, KIRC and THYM. The LIHC 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 LIHC as the clearest survival context for CEP162 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CEP162 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 THCA for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CEP162. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CEP162 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, THCA, BRCA and LUAD and higher tumor expression in LIHC and HNSC. The KICH box plot shows higher CEP162 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.600, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CEP162 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CEP162 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CEP162 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LIVER and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
