Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FAHD1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FAHD1 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FAHD1 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, FAHD1 protein abundance shows 22,060 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, HNSC, and PDAC as cancer lineages where FAHD1 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 FAHD1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FAHD1 survival associations across molecular data types. FAHD1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (3) 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 FAHD1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FAHD1 expression shows unfavorable associations in HNSC, UVM and UCS, but favorable associations in KIRC, KIRP and BRCA. 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 FAHD1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FAHD1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FAHD1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FAHD1 shows lower tumor expression in READ and higher tumor expression in HNSC, BRCA, LUAD, KIRC and LUSC. The HNSC box plot shows higher FAHD1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.336, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FAHD1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FAHD1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PDAC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FAHD1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
