Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MTHFR profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MTHFR expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, MTHFR is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Additionally, MTHFR RNA expression shows 19,468 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight KIRC, BLCA, and ACC as cancer lineages where MTHFR 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 MTHFR — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MTHFR survival associations across molecular data types. MTHFR RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (5) 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 MTHFR RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MTHFR expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KICH, LIHC and LGG, but favorable associations in KIRC and HNSC. 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 MTHFR RNA expression.
This table summarizes MTHFR 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 3. The strongest signals are observed in LIHC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MTHFR. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MTHFR shows lower tumor expression in BLCA, KICH, LUAD, COAD and LUSC and higher tumor expression in LIHC. The BLCA box plot shows higher MTHFR RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.212, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MTHFR in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MTHFR shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, MTHFR 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 SOFT_TISSUE.
