Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LITAF profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LITAF expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LITAF is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, LITAF RNA expression shows 17,672 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight COAD, and KIRP as cancer lineages where LITAF 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 LITAF — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LITAF survival associations across molecular data types. LITAF RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LITAF RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LITAF expression shows unfavorable associations in SCLC, LGG and KIRP, but favorable associations in COAD, SKCM and KIRC. The COAD 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 COAD as the clearest survival context for LITAF RNA expression.
This table summarizes LITAF 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LITAF. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LITAF shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KIRC, LUSC and UCEC and higher tumor expression in LIHC and STAD. The COAD box plot shows higher LITAF RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.072, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LITAF in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LITAF shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LITAF 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 SKIN and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
