Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CIB1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CIB1 expression is associated with patient survival in 28 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CIB1 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CIB1 protein abundance shows 23,320 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and GBM as cancer lineages where CIB1 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 CIB1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CIB1 survival associations across molecular data types. CIB1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (28), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CIB1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CIB1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KICH, KIRC, LUAD and PAAD, but favorable associations in UCEC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for CIB1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CIB1 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CIB1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CIB1 shows higher tumor expression in KIRC, STAD, LIHC, BRCA, LUAD and UCEC. The KIRC box plot shows higher CIB1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.697, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CIB1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CIB1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CIB1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LIVER and BONE.
