ring finger and FYVE like domain containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligaseGenealiases: CARP-2 · CARP2 · FRING · RIFIFYLIN · RNF189 · RNF34L
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored RFFL profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. RFFL expression is associated with patient survival in 29 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, RFFL is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, RFFL protein abundance shows 24,615 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRP, KIRC, and GBM as cancer lineages where RFFL 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 RFFL — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes RFFL survival associations across molecular data types. RFFL RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (29), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible RFFL RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High RFFL expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, LGG and LUAD, but favorable associations in SKCM, READ and COAD. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for RFFL RNA expression.
This table summarizes RFFL 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 9. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for RFFL. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. RFFL shows lower tumor expression in KICH and THCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, LUAD, LUSC and BRCA. The KIRC box plot shows higher RFFL RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.373, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with RFFL in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, RFFL 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, RFFL RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Leukemia, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SOFT_TISSUE and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
