Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CST4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CST4 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UCS. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CST4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, CST4 protein abundance shows 13,782 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UCS, COAD, and GBM as cancer lineages where CST4 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 CST4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CST4 survival associations across molecular data types. CST4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CST4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CST4 expression shows unfavorable associations in UCS, OV, LIHC and PAAD, but favorable associations in SKCM and BLCA. The UCS 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 UCS as the clearest survival context for CST4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CST4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in BLCA for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CST4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CST4 shows higher tumor expression in COAD, BLCA, LUAD, BRCA, STAD and LUSC. The COAD box plot shows higher CST4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.813, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CST4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CST4 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, CST4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in URINARY_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LIVER and LUNG_SCLC.
