Q-omics provides the consensus-scored DNAH5 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. DNAH5 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, DNAH5 is differentially expressed in 9, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, DNAH5 RNA expression shows 16,495 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight BRCA, COAD, and KIRP as cancer lineages where DNAH5 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 DNAH5 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes DNAH5 survival associations across molecular data types. DNAH5 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (12) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible DNAH5 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High DNAH5 expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG, THYM and ACC, but favorable associations in BRCA, LUAD and READ. The BRCA Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify BRCA as the clearest survival context for DNAH5 RNA expression.
This table summarizes DNAH5 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 COAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for DNAH5. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. DNAH5 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and LUSC and higher tumor expression in COAD, HNSC, READ and CHOL. The COAD box plot shows higher DNAH5 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.301, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with DNAH5 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, DNAH5 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, DNAH5 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 UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT and BONE.
