INTS3 and NABP interacting proteinGenealiases: C9orf80 · HSPC043 · MISE · SOSSC · SSBIP1 · hSSBIP1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored INIP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. INIP expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, INIP is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, INIP protein abundance shows 25,209 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, HNSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where INIP 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 INIP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes INIP survival associations across molecular data types. INIP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible INIP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High INIP expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC and MESO, but favorable associations in KIRC, COAD, BRCA and KIRP. 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 INIP RNA expression.
This table summarizes INIP 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 7. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for INIP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. INIP shows lower tumor expression in THCA, KIRC and KICH and higher tumor expression in HNSC, STAD and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher INIP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.733, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with INIP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, INIP 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, INIP 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 STOMACH and BLOOD_Leukemia.
