Q-omics provides the consensus-scored COA4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. COA4 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, COA4 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, COA4 RNA expression shows 18,460 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and ACC as cancer lineages where COA4 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 COA4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes COA4 survival associations across molecular data types. COA4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (1) 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 COA4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High COA4 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KICH, ACC, HNSC, PAAD and LIHC. 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 COA4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes COA4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, 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 COA4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. COA4 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC, HNSC, BLCA, LIHC and LUAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher COA4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.828, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with COA4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, COA4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, COA4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Lymphoma and BLOOD_Leukemia.
