Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MAF profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MAF expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, MAF is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, MAF RNA expression shows 18,874 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and UVM as cancer lineages where MAF 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 MAF — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MAF survival associations across molecular data types. MAF RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (5) 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 MAF RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MAF expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, HNSC, LGG and SCLC, but favorable associations in KIRC and ESCA. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for MAF RNA expression.
This table summarizes MAF 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 KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MAF. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MAF shows lower tumor expression in COAD, UCEC, THCA and KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC and HNSC. The KIRC box plot shows higher MAF RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.630, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MAF in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MAF shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, MAF 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 BONE and LUNG_SCLC.
