Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MDFI profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MDFI 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, MDFI is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, MDFI RNA expression shows 16,231 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in CCRCC. Together, these results highlight UVM, COAD, and CCRCC as cancer lineages where MDFI 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 MDFI — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MDFI survival associations across molecular data types. MDFI RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible MDFI RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MDFI expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KIRP, LUAD, SKCM and ACC, but favorable associations in UCS. 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 MDFI RNA expression.
This table summarizes MDFI tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MDFI. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MDFI shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in COAD, HNSC, THCA, BLCA and LUAD. The COAD box plot shows higher MDFI RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +3.376, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MDFI in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MDFI shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with CCRCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, MDFI RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LARGE_INTESTINE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and BONE.
