stabilizer of axonemal microtubules 1Genealiases: C9orf138 · FAM154A
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored SAXO1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. SAXO1 expression is associated with patient survival in 18 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, SAXO1 is differentially expressed in 7, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Additionally, SAXO1 RNA expression shows 11,955 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight MESO, LIHC, and KIRP as cancer lineages where SAXO1 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 SAXO1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes SAXO1 survival associations across molecular data types. SAXO1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (18), followed by mutation status (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible SAXO1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High SAXO1 expression shows unfavorable associations in LUSC, READ, KICH and CHOL, but favorable associations in MESO and LUAD. The MESO Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .004). Together, the overview and detailed table identify MESO as the clearest survival context for SAXO1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes SAXO1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 7. The strongest signals are observed in LIHC for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for SAXO1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. SAXO1 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, LUSC, KICH and UCEC and higher tumor expression in LIHC and KIRP. The LIHC box plot shows higher SAXO1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.145, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with SAXO1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, SAXO1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, SAXO1 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 SKIN and BLOOD_Leukemia.
