Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MRPL40 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MRPL40 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, MRPL40 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, MRPL40 protein abundance shows 20,859 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where MRPL40 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 MRPL40 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MRPL40 survival associations across molecular data types. MRPL40 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by 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 MRPL40 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MRPL40 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KICH, ACC and LAML, but favorable associations in CESC and BRCA. 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 MRPL40 RNA expression.
This table summarizes MRPL40 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 CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MRPL40. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MRPL40 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRC, LIHC, HNSC, LUSC and COAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher MRPL40 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.783, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MRPL40 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MRPL40 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, MRPL40 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
