Q-omics provides the consensus-scored EDAR profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. EDAR expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, EDAR is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, EDAR RNA expression shows 17,481 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and THYM as cancer lineages where EDAR 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 EDAR — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes EDAR survival associations across molecular data types. EDAR RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible EDAR RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High EDAR expression shows unfavorable associations in COAD, UVM and READ, but favorable associations in KIRC, BRCA and KIRP. 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 EDAR RNA expression.
This table summarizes EDAR 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 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for EDAR. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. EDAR shows lower tumor expression in KICH, KIRC, BRCA and HNSC and higher tumor expression in COAD and STAD. The KICH box plot shows higher EDAR RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.880, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with EDAR in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, EDAR 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, EDAR RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SKIN and URINARY_TRACT.
