peter pan homologGenealiases: BXDC3 · SSF · SSF-1 · SSF1 · SSF2
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PPAN profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PPAN expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PPAN is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, PPAN RNA expression shows 18,997 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight ACC, and COAD as cancer lineages where PPAN 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 PPAN — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PPAN survival associations across molecular data types. PPAN RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by 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 PPAN RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PPAN expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KIRC, KICH and KIRP, but favorable associations in SCLC and HNSC. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for PPAN RNA expression.
This table summarizes PPAN tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 4. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PPAN. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PPAN shows higher tumor expression in COAD, KIRC, KIRP, STAD, LIHC and HNSC. The COAD box plot shows higher PPAN RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.945, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PPAN in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PPAN shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, PPAN RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LIVER and LARGE_INTESTINE.
