PHD finger protein 6Genealiases: BFLS · BORJ · CENP-31
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PHF6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PHF6 expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PHF6 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, PHF6 protein abundance shows 28,446 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight MESO, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where PHF6 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 PHF6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PHF6 survival associations across molecular data types. PHF6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (4) 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 PHF6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PHF6 expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, PAAD, HNSC and LIHC, but favorable associations in ACC and KIRC. The MESO Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify MESO as the clearest survival context for PHF6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes PHF6 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PHF6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PHF6 shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, BLCA, LIHC, LUAD, COAD and STAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher PHF6 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.476, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PHF6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PHF6 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, PHF6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LUNG_SCLC.
