Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FAP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FAP expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FAP is differentially expressed in 17, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, FAP protein abundance shows 25,371 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and BRCA as cancer lineages where FAP 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 FAP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FAP survival associations across molecular data types. FAP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FAP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FAP expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, ACC, MESO, STAD and HNSC, but favorable associations in DLBC. The KIRP Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRP as the clearest survival context for FAP RNA expression.
This table summarizes FAP 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 8. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FAP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FAP shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, LUAD, COAD, BLCA, STAD and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher FAP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +4.233, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FAP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FAP shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with BRCA recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FAP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_SCLC and CNS.
