Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FAM110D profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FAM110D expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FAM110D is differentially expressed in 17, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, FAM110D RNA expression shows 18,632 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in CCRCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and CCRCC as cancer lineages where FAM110D 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 FAM110D — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FAM110D survival associations across molecular data types. FAM110D RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (1) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FAM110D RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FAM110D expression shows unfavorable associations in COAD and KIRP, but favorable associations in KIRC, KICH, HNSC and LIHC. 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 FAM110D RNA expression.
This table summarizes FAM110D tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 17, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 4. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FAM110D. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FAM110D shows lower tumor expression in KICH, LUAD, BLCA, COAD, KIRP and LUSC. The KICH box plot shows higher FAM110D RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.225, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FAM110D in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FAM110D shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with CCRCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FAM110D 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 CNS and LUNG_SCLC.
