cilia and flagella associated protein 58Genealiases: C10orf80 · CCDC147 · SPGF49 · bA127L20.4 · bA127L20.5 · bA554P13.1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CFAP58 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CFAP58 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CFAP58 is differentially expressed in 8, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, CFAP58 RNA expression shows 19,014 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUAD, and THYM as cancer lineages where CFAP58 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 CFAP58 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CFAP58 survival associations across molecular data types. CFAP58 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CFAP58 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CFAP58 expression shows unfavorable associations in HNSC and LUAD, but favorable associations in KIRC, ACC, ESCA and SCLC. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .003). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for CFAP58 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CFAP58 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 8, 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 CFAP58. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CFAP58 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, LUSC, THCA, BRCA and UCEC and higher tumor expression in KIRC. The LUAD box plot shows higher CFAP58 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.086, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CFAP58 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CFAP58 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, CFAP58 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 LIVER and SOFT_TISSUE.
