lipase G, endothelial typeGenealiases: EDL · EL · PRO719
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LIPG profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LIPG expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LIPG is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, LIPG RNA expression shows 18,039 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight MESO, KICH, and TGCT as cancer lineages where LIPG 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 LIPG — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LIPG survival associations across molecular data types. LIPG RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (4) 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 LIPG RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LIPG expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, UVM, ACC, LUSC, STAD and CESC. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for LIPG RNA expression.
This table summarizes LIPG tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LIPG. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LIPG shows lower tumor expression in KICH, KIRC and THCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, COAD and STAD. The KICH box plot shows higher LIPG RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.461, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LIPG in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LIPG shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with TGCT recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LIPG 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 SKIN and BREAST.
