nucleolar protein with MIF4G domain 1Genealiases: C7orf3 · PPP1R113 · SGD1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored NOM1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. NOM1 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, NOM1 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, NOM1 protein abundance shows 25,079 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight MESO, COAD, and LSCC as cancer lineages where NOM1 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 NOM1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes NOM1 survival associations across molecular data types. NOM1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible NOM1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High NOM1 expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, KICH, UVM, CESC, ACC and LGG. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for NOM1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes NOM1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, 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 NOM1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. NOM1 shows higher tumor expression in COAD, KIRP, HNSC, KIRC, LIHC and STAD. The COAD box plot shows higher NOM1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.194, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with NOM1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, NOM1 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, NOM1 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 BONE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
