peptidylglycine alpha-amidating monooxygenaseGenealiases: PAL · PAM-1 · PHM
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PAM profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PAM expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PAM is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, PAM protein abundance shows 24,233 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and GBM as cancer lineages where PAM 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 PAM — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PAM survival associations across molecular data types. PAM RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (2) 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 PAM RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PAM expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, LGG, CESC and BLCA, but favorable associations in KIRC and UCEC. 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 PAM RNA expression.
This table summarizes PAM tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PAM. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PAM shows lower tumor expression in KICH, BLCA and LUSC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, THCA and HNSC. The KICH box plot shows higher PAM RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.915, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PAM in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PAM 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, PAM RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
