Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CISH profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CISH expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CISH is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, CISH RNA expression shows 21,121 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where CISH 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 CISH — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CISH survival associations across molecular data types. CISH RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (2) 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 CISH RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CISH expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG, but favorable associations in KIRC, BRCA, ACC, UCEC and KIRP. 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 CISH RNA expression.
This table summarizes CISH tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CISH. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CISH shows lower tumor expression in LUSC, KIRC, LUAD and KIRP and higher tumor expression in BRCA and STAD. The LUSC box plot shows higher CISH RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.122, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CISH in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CISH 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, CISH RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in URINARY_TRACT and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
