Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FAS profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FAS expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FAS is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, FAS RNA expression shows 20,931 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where FAS 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 FAS — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FAS survival associations across molecular data types. FAS RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (2) 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 FAS RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FAS expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG and KIRP, but favorable associations in KIRC, COAD, SKCM and MESO. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .007). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for FAS RNA expression.
This table summarizes FAS tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, 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 FAS. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FAS shows lower tumor expression in COAD, LUSC and KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC, THCA and KIRP. The KIRC box plot shows higher FAS RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.520, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FAS in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FAS shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FAS RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Myeloma and BREAST.
