Q-omics provides the consensus-scored OXTR profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. OXTR expression is associated with patient survival in 27 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, OXTR is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, OXTR RNA expression shows 17,538 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight MESO, COAD, and UVM as cancer lineages where OXTR 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 OXTR — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes OXTR survival associations across molecular data types. OXTR RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (27), followed by mutation status (6) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible OXTR RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High OXTR expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, LGG, BLCA and UVM, but favorable associations in SKCM and BRCA. 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 OXTR RNA expression.
This table summarizes OXTR tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for OXTR. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. OXTR shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in COAD, THCA, LIHC, READ and HNSC. The COAD box plot shows higher OXTR RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.246, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with OXTR in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, OXTR shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, OXTR RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BONE and SOFT_TISSUE.
