Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MICU2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MICU2 expression is associated with patient survival in 19 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, MICU2 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, MICU2 RNA expression shows 19,520 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and UVM as cancer lineages where MICU2 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 MICU2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MICU2 survival associations across molecular data types. MICU2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (19), followed by mutation status (2) 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 MICU2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MICU2 expression shows unfavorable associations in OV and CESC, but favorable associations in KIRC, BRCA, KIRP and MESO. 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 MICU2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes MICU2 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MICU2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MICU2 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, KICH, KIRP and LUSC and higher tumor expression in STAD and LIHC. The KIRC box plot shows higher MICU2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.904, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MICU2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MICU2 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, MICU2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SOFT_TISSUE and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
