Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CPB2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CPB2 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CPB2 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, CPB2 protein abundance shows 37,219 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight LUSC, LUAD, and GBM as cancer lineages where CPB2 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 CPB2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CPB2 survival associations across molecular data types. CPB2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (11). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CPB2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CPB2 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUSC, KICH, SKCM, MESO and DLBC, but favorable associations in LIHC. The LUSC 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 LUSC as the clearest survival context for CPB2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CPB2 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 8. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CPB2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CPB2 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, KICH and LUSC and higher tumor expression in UCEC, HNSC and COAD. The LUAD box plot shows higher CPB2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −5.181, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CPB2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CPB2 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, CPB2 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 BONE and LARGE_INTESTINE.
