Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CTDSPL profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CTDSPL expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CTDSPL is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CTDSPL RNA expression shows 19,553 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and ACC as cancer lineages where CTDSPL 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 CTDSPL — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CTDSPL survival associations across molecular data types. CTDSPL RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CTDSPL RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CTDSPL expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC and ACC, but favorable associations in KIRC, BRCA, UCS and THYM. 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 CTDSPL RNA expression.
This table summarizes CTDSPL 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CTDSPL. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CTDSPL shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, LUAD, BLCA, LUSC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in LIHC. The KIRC box plot shows higher CTDSPL RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.303, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CTDSPL in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CTDSPL shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CTDSPL RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
