Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FN1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FN1 expression is associated with patient survival in 27 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FN1 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, FN1 protein abundance shows 37,271 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where FN1 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 FN1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FN1 survival associations across molecular data types. FN1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (27), followed by mutation status (10) 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 FN1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FN1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, MESO, UVM, STAD, BLCA and ACC. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for FN1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FN1 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 9. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FN1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FN1 shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRC, THCA, BRCA, KIRP and STAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher FN1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +6.066, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FN1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FN1 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, FN1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and SOFT_TISSUE.
