Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MPP6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MPP6 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, MPP6 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, MPP6 RNA expression shows 18,855 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UVM, and COAD as cancer lineages where MPP6 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 MPP6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MPP6 survival associations across molecular data types. MPP6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible MPP6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MPP6 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, HNSC, KICH, LIHC and BLCA, but favorable associations in 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 MPP6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes MPP6 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and PDAC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MPP6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MPP6 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in COAD, KIRP, LUAD, KIRC and HNSC. The COAD box plot shows higher MPP6 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.437, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MPP6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MPP6 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, MPP6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SKIN and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
