Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CNDP1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CNDP1 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CNDP1 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, CNDP1 protein abundance shows 22,390 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KICH, KIRP, and GBM as cancer lineages where CNDP1 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 CNDP1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CNDP1 survival associations across molecular data types. CNDP1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (5) 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 CNDP1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CNDP1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH, COAD, ACC and DLBC, but favorable associations in LIHC and UCS. The KICH 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 KICH as the clearest survival context for CNDP1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CNDP1 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRP for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CNDP1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CNDP1 shows lower tumor expression in KIRP, LIHC, KICH, CHOL and KIRC and higher tumor expression in BLCA. The KIRP box plot shows higher CNDP1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.073, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CNDP1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CNDP1 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, CNDP1 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 BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
