ribosomal protein L32Genealiases: L32 · PP9932 · eL32
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored RPL32 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. RPL32 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, RPL32 is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, RPL32 protein abundance shows 23,852 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRC, and GBM as cancer lineages where RPL32 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 RPL32 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes RPL32 survival associations across molecular data types. RPL32 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (1) 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 RPL32 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High RPL32 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KICH, LIHC and SARC, but favorable associations in UVM and LGG. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for RPL32 RNA expression.
This table summarizes RPL32 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for RPL32. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. RPL32 shows lower tumor expression in BRCA and HNSC and higher tumor expression in KIRC, LIHC, COAD and KIRP. The KIRC box plot shows higher RPL32 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.455, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with RPL32 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, RPL32 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, RPL32 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
