Fc mu receptorGenealiases: FAIM3 · FcmuR · IgM FcR · TOSO
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FCMR profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FCMR expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FCMR is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, FCMR RNA expression shows 19,701 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where FCMR 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 FCMR — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FCMR survival associations across molecular data types. FCMR RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (3) 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 FCMR RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FCMR expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM and KIRP, but favorable associations in HNSC, BRCA, BLCA and CESC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for FCMR RNA expression.
This table summarizes FCMR 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 2. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FCMR. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FCMR shows lower tumor expression in COAD and LUSC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, BRCA, HNSC and STAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher FCMR RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.620, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FCMR in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FCMR 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, FCMR 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 SOFT_TISSUE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
