Fc alpha and mu receptorGenealiases: CD351 · FCA/MR · FKSG87 · Fcalpha/muR
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FCAMR profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FCAMR expression is associated with patient survival in 19 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FCAMR is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, FCAMR RNA expression shows 9,962 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ESCA. Together, these results highlight LUAD, KICH, and ESCA as cancer lineages where FCAMR 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 FCAMR — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FCAMR survival associations across molecular data types. FCAMR RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (19), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FCAMR RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FCAMR expression shows unfavorable associations in COAD, UVM and ESCA, but favorable associations in LUAD, READ and HNSC. The LUAD 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 LUAD as the clearest survival context for FCAMR RNA expression.
This table summarizes FCAMR tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in KICH for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FCAMR. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FCAMR shows lower tumor expression in KICH, KIRP, COAD and CHOL and higher tumor expression in BRCA and LUAD. The KICH box plot shows higher FCAMR RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.397, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FCAMR in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FCAMR shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ESCA recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FCAMR RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LIVER, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and CNS.
