Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FH profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FH 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, FH is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, FH protein abundance shows 30,246 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UCEC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, LUAD, and UCEC as cancer lineages where FH 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 FH — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FH survival associations across molecular data types. FH RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible FH RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FH expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, ACC, LAML and KICH, but favorable associations in KIRP and OV. The KIRP Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRP as the clearest survival context for FH RNA expression.
This table summarizes FH 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 11. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FH. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FH shows lower tumor expression in THCA and KIRC and higher tumor expression in LUAD, LIHC, LUSC and UCEC. The LUAD box plot shows higher FH RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.661, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FH in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FH shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UCEC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FH 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 UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT and BONE.
