Q-omics provides the consensus-scored FUT4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. FUT4 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, FUT4 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, FUT4 RNA expression shows 20,218 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight LUAD, KIRC, and UVM as cancer lineages where FUT4 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 FUT4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes FUT4 survival associations across molecular data types. FUT4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (5) 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 FUT4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High FUT4 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUAD, LGG and BLCA, but favorable associations in READ, HNSC and KIRC. The LUAD 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 LUAD as the clearest survival context for FUT4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes FUT4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and PDAC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for FUT4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. FUT4 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, KICH and UCEC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, STAD and LUAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher FUT4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.788, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with FUT4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, FUT4 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, FUT4 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 LIVER and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
