Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FMN1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FMN1 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FMN1 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, FMN1 RNA expression shows 20,649 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UVM, LUSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where FMN1 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 FMN1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FMN1 survival associations across molecular data types. FMN1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (12) 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 FMN1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FMN1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KICH, PAAD and HNSC, but favorable associations in UCEC and BRCA. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for FMN1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FMN1 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FMN1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FMN1 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC, READ, HNSC and KIRC and higher tumor expression in CHOL and STAD. The LUSC box plot shows higher FMN1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.272, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FMN1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FMN1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, FMN1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Leukemia, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SKIN and BONE.
