Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PCDHAC1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PCDHAC1 expression is associated with patient survival in 29 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PCDHAC1 is differentially expressed in 8, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, PCDHAC1 RNA expression shows 16,586 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PCPG. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUSC, and PCPG as cancer lineages where PCDHAC1 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 PCDHAC1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PCDHAC1 survival associations across molecular data types. PCDHAC1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (29), followed by mutation status (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible PCDHAC1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PCDHAC1 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUSC and LUAD, but favorable associations in KIRC, UVM, UCS and KIRP. 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 PCDHAC1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes PCDHAC1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 8, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PCDHAC1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PCDHAC1 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC and KICH and higher tumor expression in KIRP, THCA, PRAD and LUAD. The LUSC box plot shows higher PCDHAC1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.701, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PCDHAC1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PCDHAC1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PCPG recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, PCDHAC1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in URINARY_TRACT and LARGE_INTESTINE.
