Indian hedgehog signaling moleculeGenealiases: BDA1 · HHG2
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored IHH profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. IHH expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, IHH is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, IHH RNA expression shows 13,583 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, LUAD, and LSCC as cancer lineages where IHH 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 IHH — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes IHH survival associations across molecular data types. IHH RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible IHH RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High IHH expression shows unfavorable associations in THCA and LUSC, but favorable associations in KIRP, UCEC, KICH and SKCM. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for IHH RNA expression.
This table summarizes IHH tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for IHH. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. IHH shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, KICH, KIRP, THCA and LUSC and higher tumor expression in PAAD. The LUAD box plot shows higher IHH RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.572, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with IHH in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, IHH shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, IHH RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Myeloma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and LARGE_INTESTINE.
