Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LHFPL6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LHFPL6 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LHFPL6 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, LHFPL6 RNA expression shows 23,504 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Together, these results highlight UVM, LUAD, and BRCA as cancer lineages where LHFPL6 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 LHFPL6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LHFPL6 survival associations across molecular data types. LHFPL6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LHFPL6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LHFPL6 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KIRP, BLCA, LGG, COAD and LUSC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for LHFPL6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes LHFPL6 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 2. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LHFPL6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LHFPL6 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, LUSC, KICH, BLCA and UCEC and higher tumor expression in HNSC. The LUAD box plot shows higher LHFPL6 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.125, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LHFPL6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LHFPL6 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with BRCA recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LHFPL6 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 URINARY_TRACT and BREAST.
