Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LRRN4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LRRN4 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, LRRN4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, LRRN4 RNA expression shows 16,928 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight COAD, HNSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where LRRN4 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 LRRN4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LRRN4 survival associations across molecular data types. LRRN4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (10) 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 LRRN4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LRRN4 expression shows unfavorable associations in COAD, LUSC, CESC, BLCA and HNSC, but favorable associations in LGG. The COAD 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 COAD as the clearest survival context for LRRN4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes LRRN4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LRRN4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LRRN4 shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, KIRC and LUSC and higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRP and COAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher LRRN4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.686, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LRRN4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LRRN4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LRRN4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and LARGE_INTESTINE.
