Q-omics provides the consensus-scored KRT85 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. KRT85 expression is associated with patient survival in 17 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, KRT85 is differentially expressed in 9, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, KRT85 RNA expression shows 6,612 significant pathway-activity associations, with the highest sampling consensus in STAD. Together, these results highlight KICH, KIRP, and STAD as cancer lineages where KRT85 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 KRT85 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes KRT85 survival associations across molecular data types. KRT85 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (17), followed by mutation status (6) 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 KRT85 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High KRT85 expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH, STAD, BLCA and GBM, but favorable associations in ESCA and THCA. The KICH 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 KICH as the clearest survival context for KRT85 RNA expression.
This table summarizes KRT85 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 9, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRP for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for KRT85. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. KRT85 shows lower tumor expression in KIRP, THCA, HNSC, KICH and KIRC and higher tumor expression in BLCA. The KIRP box plot shows higher KRT85 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.401, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with KRT85 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, KRT85 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with STAD recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, KRT85 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_SCLC and LARGE_INTESTINE.
