Q-omics provides the consensus-scored DPH1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. DPH1 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in PAAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, DPH1 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, DPH1 RNA expression shows 20,160 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight PAAD, COAD, and KIRP as cancer lineages where DPH1 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 DPH1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes DPH1 survival associations across molecular data types. DPH1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible DPH1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High DPH1 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUSC and MESO, but favorable associations in PAAD, READ, BRCA and SCLC. The PAAD 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 PAAD as the clearest survival context for DPH1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes DPH1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for DPH1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. DPH1 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, BRCA and UCEC and higher tumor expression in COAD, CHOL and STAD. The COAD box plot shows higher DPH1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.589, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with DPH1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, DPH1 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, DPH1 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 BLOOD_Myeloma and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
