Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PDE6H profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PDE6H expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PDE6H is differentially expressed in 4, with the highest sampling consensus in PRAD. Additionally, PDE6H RNA expression shows 7,950 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in TGCT. Together, these results highlight COAD, PRAD, and TGCT as cancer lineages where PDE6H 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 PDE6H — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PDE6H survival associations across molecular data types. PDE6H RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible PDE6H RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PDE6H expression shows unfavorable associations in COAD, READ, CHOL and UVM, but favorable associations in STAD and LUAD. The COAD 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 COAD as the clearest survival context for PDE6H RNA expression.
This table summarizes PDE6H tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 4, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 1. The strongest signals are observed in PRAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PDE6H. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PDE6H shows lower tumor expression in KICH, LUSC and KIRP and higher tumor expression in PRAD. The PRAD box plot shows higher PDE6H RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.051, t-test p = .012).
This table shows molecular features associated with PDE6H in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PDE6H 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, PDE6H RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SOFT_TISSUE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
