Q-omics provides the consensus-scored ENPP2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. ENPP2 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, ENPP2 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, ENPP2 RNA expression shows 25,047 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and LSCC as cancer lineages where ENPP2 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 ENPP2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes ENPP2 survival associations across molecular data types. ENPP2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (8) 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 ENPP2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High ENPP2 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUSC and KICH, but favorable associations in KIRC, UVM, PAAD and HNSC. 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 ENPP2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes ENPP2 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for ENPP2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. ENPP2 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KIRP, LUAD and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC and LIHC. The COAD box plot shows higher ENPP2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.802, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with ENPP2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, ENPP2 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, ENPP2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_SCLC and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
