NIPA like domain containing 1Genealiases: NIPA3 · NPAL1 · SLC57A3
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored NIPAL1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. NIPAL1 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, NIPAL1 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, NIPAL1 RNA expression shows 18,932 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and THYM as cancer lineages where NIPAL1 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 NIPAL1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes NIPAL1 survival associations across molecular data types. NIPAL1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible NIPAL1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High NIPAL1 expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG, THCA and MESO, but favorable associations in KIRC, COAD and READ. 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 NIPAL1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes NIPAL1 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 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for NIPAL1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. NIPAL1 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, COAD, KIRP, LIHC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in LUSC. The KIRC box plot shows higher NIPAL1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.528, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with NIPAL1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, NIPAL1 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, NIPAL1 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 LIVER and BLOOD_Leukemia.
