Q-omics provides the consensus-scored RPP40 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. RPP40 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UCEC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, RPP40 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, RPP40 protein abundance shows 26,732 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight UCEC, KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where RPP40 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 RPP40 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes RPP40 survival associations across molecular data types. RPP40 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (3) 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 RPP40 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High RPP40 expression shows unfavorable associations in UCEC, ACC, KIRP, SKCM and LIHC, but favorable associations in READ. The UCEC 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 UCEC as the clearest survival context for RPP40 RNA expression.
This table summarizes RPP40 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for RPP40. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. RPP40 shows higher tumor expression in KIRC, LUSC, LIHC, LUAD, COAD and STAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher RPP40 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.319, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with RPP40 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, RPP40 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, RPP40 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 SOFT_TISSUE and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
