Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LUZP4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LUZP4 expression is associated with patient survival in 17 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LUZP4 is differentially expressed in 9, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, LUZP4 RNA expression shows 9,804 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight KIRP, and TGCT as cancer lineages where LUZP4 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 LUZP4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LUZP4 survival associations across molecular data types. LUZP4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (17), 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 LUZP4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LUZP4 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, COAD, BRCA, KIRC and UVM, but favorable associations in ESCA. 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 LUZP4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes LUZP4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 9, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in BRCA for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LUZP4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LUZP4 shows lower tumor expression in UCEC and higher tumor expression in KIRP, BRCA, HNSC, LUSC and THCA. The KIRP box plot shows higher LUZP4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.094, t-test p = .015).
This table shows molecular features associated with LUZP4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LUZP4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with TGCT recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LUZP4 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 BLOOD_Myeloma and LARGE_INTESTINE.
