Q-omics provides the consensus-scored IFT74 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. IFT74 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, IFT74 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, IFT74 RNA expression shows 20,740 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight MESO, KICH, and UVM as cancer lineages where IFT74 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 IFT74 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes IFT74 survival associations across molecular data types. IFT74 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible IFT74 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High IFT74 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC and KICH, but favorable associations in MESO, UCEC, READ and KIRC. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for IFT74 RNA expression.
This table summarizes IFT74 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 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for IFT74. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. IFT74 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, KIRC, THCA and COAD and higher tumor expression in LIHC and CHOL. The KICH box plot shows higher IFT74 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.101, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with IFT74 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, IFT74 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, IFT74 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
