Q-omics provides the consensus-scored ENPP4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. ENPP4 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, ENPP4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, ENPP4 protein abundance shows 35,628 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where ENPP4 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 ENPP4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes ENPP4 survival associations across molecular data types. ENPP4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible ENPP4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High ENPP4 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM and LUSC, but favorable associations in KIRC, ACC, SKCM and LUAD. 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 ENPP4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes ENPP4 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 10. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for ENPP4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. ENPP4 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC, LUAD, HNSC, THCA and KICH and higher tumor expression in LIHC. The LUSC box plot shows higher ENPP4 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.115, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with ENPP4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, ENPP4 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, ENPP4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Leukemia.
