lipase family member MGenealiases: LIPL3 · bA304I5.1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LIPM profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LIPM expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LIPM is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, LIPM RNA expression shows 14,744 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight BLCA, THCA, and UVM as cancer lineages where LIPM 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 LIPM — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LIPM survival associations across molecular data types. LIPM RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LIPM RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LIPM expression shows unfavorable associations in THYM and KIRP, but favorable associations in BLCA, SKCM, UCEC and MESO. The BLCA 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 BLCA as the clearest survival context for LIPM RNA expression.
This table summarizes LIPM 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 THCA for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LIPM. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LIPM shows lower tumor expression in KIRP and higher tumor expression in THCA, LUAD, LUSC, UCEC and STAD. The THCA box plot shows higher LIPM RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.292, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LIPM in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LIPM 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, LIPM RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
