Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CMBL profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CMBL expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CMBL is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, CMBL protein abundance shows 19,759 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and BRCA as cancer lineages where CMBL 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 CMBL — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CMBL survival associations across molecular data types. CMBL RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CMBL RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CMBL expression shows unfavorable associations in DLBC, ESCA and KIRP, but favorable associations in KIRC, OV and READ. 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 CMBL RNA expression.
This table summarizes CMBL 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 COAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CMBL. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CMBL shows lower tumor expression in COAD, THCA, KICH and READ and higher tumor expression in HNSC and BRCA. The COAD box plot shows higher CMBL RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.172, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CMBL in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CMBL shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with BRCA recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CMBL RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT and BLOOD_Leukemia.
