Q-omics provides the consensus-scored SGIP1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. SGIP1 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, SGIP1 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, SGIP1 protein abundance shows 39,348 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where SGIP1 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 SGIP1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes SGIP1 survival associations across molecular data types. SGIP1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (12). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible SGIP1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High SGIP1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, UVM and ACC, but favorable associations in LUAD, SKCM and HNSC. 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 SGIP1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes SGIP1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 11. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for SGIP1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. SGIP1 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, KIRP, KIRC, THCA and LUSC and higher tumor expression in HNSC. The HNSC box plot shows higher SGIP1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.820, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with SGIP1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, SGIP1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, SGIP1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD and LARGE_INTESTINE.
