Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CES3 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CES3 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CES3 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, CES3 RNA expression shows 13,146 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight HNSC, COAD, and TGCT as cancer lineages where CES3 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 CES3 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CES3 survival associations across molecular data types. CES3 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CES3 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CES3 expression shows unfavorable associations in UCS, but favorable associations in HNSC, KIRC, CESC, LUSC and LIHC. The HNSC 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 HNSC as the clearest survival context for CES3 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CES3 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CES3. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CES3 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, HNSC, KIRP, READ and KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC. The COAD box plot shows higher CES3 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.460, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CES3 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CES3 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with TGCT recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CES3 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SOFT_TISSUE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
