Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FABP6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FABP6 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FABP6 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, FABP6 protein abundance shows 16,738 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KICH, KIRC, and GBM as cancer lineages where FABP6 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 FABP6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FABP6 survival associations across molecular data types. FABP6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), 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 FABP6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FABP6 expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH, LIHC, KIRP and BRCA, but favorable associations in BLCA and ACC. The KICH Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KICH as the clearest survival context for FABP6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FABP6 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 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FABP6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FABP6 shows higher tumor expression in KIRC, COAD, HNSC, READ, KIRP and BLCA. The KIRC box plot shows higher FABP6 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +5.052, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FABP6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FABP6 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FABP6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
