fatty acid binding protein 2Genealiases: FABPI · I-FABP
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FABP2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FABP2 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FABP2 is differentially expressed in 7, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, FABP2 RNA expression shows 7,796 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ESCA. Together, these results highlight MESO, COAD, and ESCA as cancer lineages where FABP2 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 FABP2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FABP2 survival associations across molecular data types. FABP2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FABP2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FABP2 expression shows unfavorable associations in CHOL, LGG and ESCA, but favorable associations in MESO, SKCM and PAAD. The MESO Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .013). Together, the overview and detailed table identify MESO as the clearest survival context for FABP2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FABP2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 7, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FABP2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FABP2 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KIRC, KICH and READ and higher tumor expression in PRAD and LIHC. The COAD box plot shows higher FABP2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.910, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FABP2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FABP2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ESCA recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FABP2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
