Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CILP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CILP expression is associated with patient survival in 18 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CILP is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, CILP protein abundance shows 23,224 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and HNSC as cancer lineages where CILP 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 CILP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CILP survival associations across molecular data types. CILP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (18), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CILP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CILP expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRC, KICH, THCA, BLCA and ACC, but favorable associations in BRCA. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for CILP RNA expression.
This table summarizes CILP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 8. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CILP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CILP shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KIRC, BLCA, HNSC and READ and higher tumor expression in LUAD. The COAD box plot shows higher CILP RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.892, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CILP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CILP shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with HNSC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CILP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD and LARGE_INTESTINE.
