cytochrome P450 family 3 subfamily A member 5Genealiases: CP35 · CYPIIIA5 · P450PCN3 · PCN3
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored CYP3A5 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. CYP3A5 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, CYP3A5 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, CYP3A5 RNA expression shows 19,820 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight ACC, KIRC, and UVM as cancer lineages where CYP3A5 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 CYP3A5 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes CYP3A5 survival associations across molecular data types. CYP3A5 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible CYP3A5 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High CYP3A5 expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG and THYM, but favorable associations in ACC, LIHC, BLCA and MESO. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for CYP3A5 RNA expression.
This table summarizes CYP3A5 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for CYP3A5. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. CYP3A5 shows lower tumor expression in HNSC, LUSC, THCA and UCEC and higher tumor expression in KIRC and KIRP. The KIRC box plot shows higher CYP3A5 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.938, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with CYP3A5 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, CYP3A5 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, CYP3A5 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
