Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PAFAH1B1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PAFAH1B1 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PAFAH1B1 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, PAFAH1B1 protein abundance shows 35,268 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UVM, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where PAFAH1B1 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 PAFAH1B1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PAFAH1B1 survival associations across molecular data types. PAFAH1B1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (11). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible PAFAH1B1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PAFAH1B1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, MESO, BLCA, ACC and LUSC, but favorable associations in KIRC. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for PAFAH1B1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes PAFAH1B1 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 12. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PAFAH1B1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PAFAH1B1 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, COAD, KICH and BLCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher PAFAH1B1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.569, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PAFAH1B1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PAFAH1B1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, PAFAH1B1 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 KIDNEY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
