Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FDPS profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FDPS expression is associated with patient survival in 30 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FDPS is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, FDPS RNA expression shows 19,078 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UVM, and COAD as cancer lineages where FDPS 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 FDPS — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FDPS survival associations across molecular data types. FDPS RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (30), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FDPS RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FDPS expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, MESO, ACC, CESC and KIRP, but favorable associations in KIRC. 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 FDPS RNA expression.
This table summarizes FDPS 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in BLCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FDPS. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FDPS shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in COAD, BLCA, LIHC, HNSC and BRCA. The COAD box plot shows higher FDPS RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.422, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FDPS in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FDPS shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FDPS RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT and BLOOD_Leukemia.
