Q-omics provides the consensus-scored DHRS9 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. DHRS9 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, DHRS9 is differentially expressed in 9, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, DHRS9 RNA expression shows 15,325 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and GBM as cancer lineages where DHRS9 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 DHRS9 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes DHRS9 survival associations across molecular data types. DHRS9 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (4) 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 DHRS9 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High DHRS9 expression shows unfavorable associations in OV, PAAD and LAML, but favorable associations in KIRC, CESC and CHOL. 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 DHRS9 RNA expression.
This table summarizes DHRS9 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 9, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for DHRS9. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. DHRS9 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, READ and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, KIRP and THCA. The COAD box plot shows higher DHRS9 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.925, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with DHRS9 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, DHRS9 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, DHRS9 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and SKIN.
