Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CEP164 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CEP164 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CEP164 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, CEP164 RNA expression shows 19,806 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight ACC, and HNSC as cancer lineages where CEP164 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 CEP164 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CEP164 survival associations across molecular data types. CEP164 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (5) 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 CEP164 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CEP164 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KIRC, KICH, LIHC, LGG and MESO. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for CEP164 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CEP164 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CEP164. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CEP164 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRC, COAD, LIHC and STAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher CEP164 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.088, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CEP164 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CEP164 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CEP164 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SOFT_TISSUE and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
