neurotensinGenealiases: NMN-125 · NN · NT · NT/N · NTS1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored NTS profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. NTS expression is associated with patient survival in 32 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, NTS is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, NTS RNA expression shows 12,163 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight KIRP, KICH, and TGCT as cancer lineages where NTS 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 NTS — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes NTS survival associations across molecular data types. NTS RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (32), followed by mutation status (3) 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 NTS RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High NTS expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, UVM, UCEC and SKCM, but favorable associations in LUSC and KIRC. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for NTS RNA expression.
This table summarizes NTS 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 3. The strongest signals are observed in KICH for RNA and PDAC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for NTS. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. NTS shows lower tumor expression in KICH, THCA, COAD, UCEC, BRCA and KIRP. The KICH box plot shows higher NTS RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.525, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with NTS in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, NTS shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with TGCT recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, NTS RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUSC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Leukemia.
