RIMS binding protein 2Genealiases: PPP1R133 · RBP2 · RIM-BP2
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored RIMBP2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. RIMBP2 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, RIMBP2 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, RIMBP2 RNA expression shows 16,827 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRP, KIRC, and THYM as cancer lineages where RIMBP2 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 RIMBP2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes RIMBP2 survival associations across molecular data types. RIMBP2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (9) and mass-spec protein abundance (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible RIMBP2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High RIMBP2 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP and SKCM, but favorable associations in SCLC, PAAD, CHOL and MESO. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for RIMBP2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes RIMBP2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for RIMBP2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. RIMBP2 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, KIRP, KICH and UCEC and higher tumor expression in HNSC and LUSC. The KIRC box plot shows higher RIMBP2 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.350, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with RIMBP2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, RIMBP2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, RIMBP2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in URINARY_TRACT and LARGE_INTESTINE.
