p53 and DNA damage regulated 1Genealiases: C20orf126 · PDRG
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PDRG1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PDRG1 expression is associated with patient survival in 29 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PDRG1 is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, PDRG1 protein abundance shows 21,233 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight LIHC, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where PDRG1 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 PDRG1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PDRG1 survival associations across molecular data types. PDRG1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (29), followed by mutation status (1) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible PDRG1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PDRG1 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC, UVM, LGG, KIRC, MESO and KICH. The LIHC 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 LIHC as the clearest survival context for PDRG1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes PDRG1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 16, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PDRG1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PDRG1 shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, COAD, BLCA, LUAD, LIHC and STAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher PDRG1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.237, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PDRG1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PDRG1 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, PDRG1 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 PANCREAS and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
