Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CHAF1A profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CHAF1A expression is associated with patient survival in 31 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CHAF1A is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, CHAF1A protein abundance shows 28,888 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight MESO, HNSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where CHAF1A 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 CHAF1A — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CHAF1A survival associations across molecular data types. CHAF1A RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (31), followed by mutation status (10) 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 CHAF1A RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CHAF1A expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, ACC, KICH and LGG, but favorable associations in CESC and HNSC. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for CHAF1A RNA expression.
This table summarizes CHAF1A tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 16, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CHAF1A. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CHAF1A shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, COAD, KIRP, KIRC, BLCA and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher CHAF1A RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.540, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CHAF1A in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CHAF1A shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CHAF1A RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
