Q-omics provides the consensus-scored SARAF profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. SARAF expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, SARAF is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, SARAF RNA expression shows 18,637 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and UVM as cancer lineages where SARAF 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 SARAF — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes SARAF survival associations across molecular data types. SARAF RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (1) and mass-spec protein abundance (9). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible SARAF RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High SARAF expression shows unfavorable associations in GBM, STAD and UVM, but favorable associations in KIRC, SKCM and BRCA. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for SARAF RNA expression.
This table summarizes SARAF tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for SARAF. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. SARAF shows lower tumor expression in LUAD, LUSC, KICH, UCEC and COAD and higher tumor expression in KIRC. The KIRC box plot shows higher SARAF RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.839, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with SARAF in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, SARAF shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, SARAF RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OESOPHAGUS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
