glutamyl aminopeptidaseGenealiases: APA · CD249 · gp160
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored ENPEP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. ENPEP expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, ENPEP is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, ENPEP protein abundance shows 29,114 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where ENPEP 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 ENPEP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes ENPEP survival associations across molecular data types. ENPEP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible ENPEP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High ENPEP expression shows unfavorable associations in STAD, UVM, COAD, BLCA and LGG, but favorable associations in KIRC. 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 ENPEP RNA expression.
This table summarizes ENPEP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 9. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for ENPEP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. ENPEP shows lower tumor expression in KICH, KIRP and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, HNSC and READ. The KIRC box plot shows higher ENPEP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.383, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with ENPEP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, ENPEP shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, ENPEP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in STOMACH and LARGE_INTESTINE.
