Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LUM profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LUM expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LUM is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, LUM protein abundance shows 34,142 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and PDAC as cancer lineages where LUM 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 LUM — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LUM survival associations across molecular data types. LUM RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LUM RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LUM expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, ACC and LGG, but favorable associations in UCS, LUAD and DLBC. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for LUM RNA expression.
This table summarizes LUM tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LUM. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LUM shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, KICH, KIRP and THCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC and BRCA. The HNSC box plot shows higher LUM RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +4.216, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LUM in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LUM shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PDAC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LUM RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in URINARY_TRACT and BONE.
