secreted frizzled related protein 4Genealiases: FRP-4 · FRPHE · FRZB-2 · PYL · sFRP-4
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored SFRP4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. SFRP4 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, SFRP4 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, SFRP4 protein abundance shows 28,924 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, COAD, and PDAC as cancer lineages where SFRP4 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 SFRP4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes SFRP4 survival associations across molecular data types. SFRP4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (4) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible SFRP4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High SFRP4 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP and LGG, but favorable associations in UCEC, SKCM, DLBC and KIRC. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for SFRP4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes SFRP4 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 11. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for SFRP4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. SFRP4 shows lower tumor expression in UCEC and higher tumor expression in COAD, LUAD, HNSC, LIHC and KIRP. The COAD box plot shows higher SFRP4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.881, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with SFRP4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, SFRP4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PDAC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, SFRP4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in KIDNEY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in PANCREAS and BONE.
