PWP2 small subunit processome componentGenealiases: EHOC-17 · PWP2H · UTP1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored PWP2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. PWP2 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UCS. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, PWP2 is differentially expressed in 1, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, PWP2 RNA expression shows 10,128 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UCEC. Together, these results highlight UCS, LUSC, and UCEC as cancer lineages where PWP2 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 PWP2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes PWP2 survival associations across molecular data types. PWP2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (1) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible PWP2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High PWP2 expression shows unfavorable associations in STAD, KIRP, THCA, ACC and UVM, but favorable associations in UCS. The UCS Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UCS as the clearest survival context for PWP2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes PWP2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 1, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for PWP2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. PWP2 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC. The LUSC box plot shows higher PWP2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.110, t-test p = .016).
This table shows molecular features associated with PWP2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, PWP2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UCEC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, PWP2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and BLOOD_Leukemia.
