Q-omics provides the consensus-scored EDN1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. EDN1 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, EDN1 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, EDN1 RNA expression shows 17,317 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and UVM as cancer lineages where EDN1 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 EDN1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes EDN1 survival associations across molecular data types. EDN1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (2) 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 EDN1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High EDN1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, SCLC, DLBC and LAML, but favorable associations in KIRC and LIHC. 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 EDN1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes EDN1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for EDN1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. EDN1 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, LUAD, LUSC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC and STAD. The KICH box plot shows higher EDN1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.792, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with EDN1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, EDN1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, EDN1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BONE.
