guanine deaminaseGenealiases: CYPIN · GAH · GUANASE · NEDASIN
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored GDA profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. GDA expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, GDA is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, GDA protein abundance shows 22,987 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where GDA 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 GDA — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes GDA survival associations across molecular data types. GDA RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible GDA RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High GDA expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, LUAD and ESCA, but favorable associations in KIRC, KIRP and BLCA. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for GDA RNA expression.
This table summarizes GDA tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for GDA. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. GDA shows lower tumor expression in BRCA and higher tumor expression in LUSC, STAD, LUAD, ESCA and UCEC. The LUSC box plot shows higher GDA RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.354, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with GDA in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, GDA 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, GDA RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD and OVARY.
