Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LYN profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LYN expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LYN is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, LYN protein abundance shows 23,117 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and GBM as cancer lineages where LYN 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 LYN — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LYN survival associations across molecular data types. LYN RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (5) 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 LYN RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LYN expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KIRP, LGG and LAML, but favorable associations in SKCM and KIRC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for LYN RNA expression.
This table summarizes LYN 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LYN. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LYN shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC, STAD, BLCA, THCA and HNSC. The KIRC box plot shows higher LYN RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.038, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LYN in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LYN shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, LYN RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Leukemia.
