Q-omics provides the consensus-scored LYRM2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. LYRM2 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, LYRM2 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, LYRM2 protein abundance shows 27,969 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight KICH, HNSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where LYRM2 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 LYRM2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes LYRM2 survival associations across molecular data types. LYRM2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible LYRM2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High LYRM2 expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH, LIHC, STAD, UVM and ACC, but favorable associations in KIRC. The KICH Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KICH as the clearest survival context for LYRM2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes LYRM2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 10. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for LYRM2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. LYRM2 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, THCA and KIRC and higher tumor expression in HNSC, LIHC and CHOL. The HNSC box plot shows higher LYRM2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.727, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with LYRM2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, LYRM2 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, LYRM2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in STOMACH and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
