Q-omics provides the consensus-scored RUSF1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. RUSF1 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, RUSF1 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, RUSF1 RNA expression shows 20,253 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRP, and ACC as cancer lineages where RUSF1 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 RUSF1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes RUSF1 survival associations across molecular data types. RUSF1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (9) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible RUSF1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High RUSF1 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, BLCA, HNSC, COAD and CESC, but favorable associations in UCS. The UVM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify UVM as the clearest survival context for RUSF1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes RUSF1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRP for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for RUSF1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. RUSF1 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in KIRP, COAD, LUAD, BLCA and BRCA. The KIRP box plot shows higher RUSF1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.186, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with RUSF1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, RUSF1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, RUSF1 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 BREAST and BLOOD_Myeloma.
