Q-omics provides the consensus-scored GPR39 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. GPR39 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, GPR39 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, GPR39 RNA expression shows 17,733 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight LUSC, HNSC, and KIRP as cancer lineages where GPR39 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 GPR39 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes GPR39 survival associations across molecular data types. GPR39 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible GPR39 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High GPR39 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUSC, PAAD, LGG, LIHC and UVM, but favorable associations in READ. The LUSC 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 LUSC as the clearest survival context for GPR39 RNA expression.
This table summarizes GPR39 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 HNSC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for GPR39. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. GPR39 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and LUSC and higher tumor expression in HNSC, STAD, LUAD and BRCA. The HNSC box plot shows higher GPR39 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.940, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with GPR39 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, GPR39 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, GPR39 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and SOFT_TISSUE.
