Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LRRC6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LRRC6 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LRRC6 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, LRRC6 RNA expression shows 19,255 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight MESO, KICH, and UVM as cancer lineages where LRRC6 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 LRRC6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LRRC6 survival associations across molecular data types. LRRC6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LRRC6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LRRC6 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUAD and STAD, but favorable associations in MESO, KIRP, READ and UCEC. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for LRRC6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes LRRC6 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in KICH for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LRRC6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LRRC6 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, THCA and LUSC and higher tumor expression in COAD, READ and BRCA. The KICH box plot shows higher LRRC6 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −3.274, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LRRC6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LRRC6 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, LRRC6 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 STOMACH and SOFT_TISSUE.
