Q-omics provides the consensus-scored MUSK profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. MUSK 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, MUSK is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, MUSK RNA expression shows 13,653 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and THYM as cancer lineages where MUSK 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 MUSK — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes MUSK survival associations across molecular data types. MUSK RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (19), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible MUSK RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High MUSK expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRC, LGG and THCA, but favorable associations in LUAD, UCS and SKCM. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for MUSK RNA expression.
This table summarizes MUSK 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 2. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for MUSK. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. MUSK shows lower tumor expression in COAD, LUAD, LUSC, KIRC, THCA and BLCA. The COAD box plot shows higher MUSK RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.018, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with MUSK in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, MUSK shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, MUSK RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD and LARGE_INTESTINE.
