Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CRISPLD1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CRISPLD1 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, CRISPLD1 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, CRISPLD1 RNA expression shows 18,550 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight ACC, THCA, and THYM as cancer lineages where CRISPLD1 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 CRISPLD1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CRISPLD1 survival associations across molecular data types. CRISPLD1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (7) 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 CRISPLD1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CRISPLD1 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, LGG, LUSC and UVM, but favorable associations in LIHC and ESCA. The ACC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify ACC as the clearest survival context for CRISPLD1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CRISPLD1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CRISPLD1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CRISPLD1 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, KICH, KIRC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRP and LUSC. The THCA box plot shows higher CRISPLD1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.562, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CRISPLD1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CRISPLD1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CRISPLD1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in KIDNEY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
