LIF interleukin 6 family cytokineGenealiases: CDF · DIA · HILDA · MLPLI
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LIF profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LIF expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LIF is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, LIF RNA expression shows 18,374 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and UVM as cancer lineages where LIF 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 LIF — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LIF survival associations across molecular data types. LIF RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LIF RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LIF expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRC, UVM, MESO, LGG and CESC, but favorable associations in SKCM. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for LIF RNA expression.
This table summarizes LIF tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LIF. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LIF shows lower tumor expression in KICH and BRCA and higher tumor expression in COAD, STAD, LUAD and HNSC. The COAD box plot shows higher LIF RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.804, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LIF in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LIF shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LIF RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LIVER and BONE.
