Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PRDM1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PRDM1 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PRDM1 is differentially expressed in 9, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, PRDM1 RNA expression shows 18,855 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight UVM, and KIRC as cancer lineages where PRDM1 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 PRDM1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PRDM1 survival associations across molecular data types. PRDM1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (6) 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 PRDM1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PRDM1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM and KIRP, but favorable associations in SKCM, LUAD, THCA and KIRC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for PRDM1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes PRDM1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 9, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PRDM1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PRDM1 shows lower tumor expression in COAD and higher tumor expression in KIRC, THCA, BRCA, LIHC and LUSC. The KIRC box plot shows higher PRDM1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.205, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with PRDM1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PRDM1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, PRDM1 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 BLOOD_Leukemia and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
