G protein-coupled receptor 162Genealiases: A-2 · GRCA
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored GPR162 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. GPR162 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, GPR162 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, GPR162 RNA expression shows 17,093 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UVM, and COAD as cancer lineages where GPR162 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 GPR162 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes GPR162 survival associations across molecular data types. GPR162 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible GPR162 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High GPR162 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KIRC, MESO and ACC, but favorable associations in PAAD and LGG. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for GPR162 RNA expression.
This table summarizes GPR162 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 1. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for GPR162. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. GPR162 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, LUAD, LUSC and UCEC and higher tumor expression in THCA and KIRP. The COAD box plot shows higher GPR162 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.699, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with GPR162 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, GPR162 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, GPR162 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 BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
