Q-omics provides the consensus-scored COMP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. COMP expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, COMP is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, COMP protein abundance shows 21,362 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Together, these results highlight ACC, COAD, and BRCA as cancer lineages where COMP 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 COMP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes COMP survival associations across molecular data types. COMP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible COMP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High COMP expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KIRP, BLCA, MESO, KIRC and LGG. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for COMP RNA expression.
This table summarizes COMP 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for COMP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. COMP shows higher tumor expression in COAD, STAD, LUAD, THCA, BRCA and BLCA. The COAD box plot shows higher COMP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +4.158, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with COMP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, COMP 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, COMP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in STOMACH and LARGE_INTESTINE.
