Q-omics provides the consensus-scored EMILIN1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. EMILIN1 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, EMILIN1 is differentially expressed in 9, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, EMILIN1 protein abundance shows 26,225 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UCEC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and UCEC as cancer lineages where EMILIN1 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 EMILIN1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes EMILIN1 survival associations across molecular data types. EMILIN1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible EMILIN1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High EMILIN1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, LGG and KIRC, but favorable associations in DLBC, UCS and LUAD. The KIRP Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRP as the clearest survival context for EMILIN1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes EMILIN1 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for EMILIN1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. EMILIN1 shows lower tumor expression in BLCA, KICH, KIRP, UCEC and LIHC and higher tumor expression in HNSC. The HNSC box plot shows higher EMILIN1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.731, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with EMILIN1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, EMILIN1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UCEC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, EMILIN1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in URINARY_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SOFT_TISSUE and LARGE_INTESTINE.
