Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CRPPA profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CRPPA expression is associated with patient survival in 27 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CRPPA is differentially expressed in 7, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, CRPPA RNA expression shows 19,175 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and THYM as cancer lineages where CRPPA 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 CRPPA — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CRPPA survival associations across molecular data types. CRPPA RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (27), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CRPPA RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CRPPA expression shows unfavorable associations in CESC, but favorable associations in KIRC, KIRP, LUSC, UCS and HNSC. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for CRPPA RNA expression.
This table summarizes CRPPA tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 7, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KICH for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CRPPA. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CRPPA shows lower tumor expression in KICH, UCEC, STAD, THCA and CHOL and higher tumor expression in HNSC. The KICH box plot shows higher CRPPA RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.867, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CRPPA in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CRPPA 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, CRPPA RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BONE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE.
