Q-omics provides the consensus-scored DNAH1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. DNAH1 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, DNAH1 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, DNAH1 RNA expression shows 20,497 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight HNSC, KIRC, and THYM as cancer lineages where DNAH1 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 DNAH1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes DNAH1 survival associations across molecular data types. DNAH1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (13) and mass-spec protein abundance (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible DNAH1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High DNAH1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRC, but favorable associations in HNSC, SKCM, BLCA, SCLC and STAD. The HNSC 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 HNSC as the clearest survival context for DNAH1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes DNAH1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for DNAH1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. DNAH1 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, LUSC, KICH and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC and COAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher DNAH1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.564, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with DNAH1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, DNAH1 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, DNAH1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in KIDNEY and SOFT_TISSUE.
