Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LHFPL4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LHFPL4 expression is associated with patient survival in 19 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LGG. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LHFPL4 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, LHFPL4 RNA expression shows 13,635 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PCPG. Together, these results highlight LGG, KIRC, and PCPG as cancer lineages where LHFPL4 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 LHFPL4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LHFPL4 survival associations across molecular data types. LHFPL4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (19), followed by mutation status (1) 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 LHFPL4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LHFPL4 expression shows unfavorable associations in UCS, KIRC and OV, but favorable associations in LGG, KIRP and STAD. The LGG 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 LGG as the clearest survival context for LHFPL4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes LHFPL4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LHFPL4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LHFPL4 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, READ, COAD, HNSC and BLCA and higher tumor expression in PAAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher LHFPL4 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.310, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LHFPL4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LHFPL4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PCPG recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LHFPL4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and OVARY.
