Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CFAP161 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CFAP161 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CFAP161 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, CFAP161 RNA expression shows 15,438 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUAD, and TGCT as cancer lineages where CFAP161 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 CFAP161 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CFAP161 survival associations across molecular data types. CFAP161 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), 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 CFAP161 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CFAP161 expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG, KIRP and THYM, but favorable associations in KIRC, UCEC and SKCM. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for CFAP161 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CFAP161 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CFAP161. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CFAP161 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, KICH and LUSC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, COAD and STAD. The LUAD box plot shows higher CFAP161 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.392, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CFAP161 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CFAP161 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, CFAP161 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BONE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Leukemia.
