signal transducing adaptor moleculeGenealiases: STAM-1 · STAM1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored STAM profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. STAM expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, STAM is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Additionally, STAM protein abundance shows 26,970 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LIHC, and GBM as cancer lineages where STAM 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 STAM — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes STAM survival associations across molecular data types. STAM RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (5) 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 STAM RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High STAM expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC, UVM, SARC and CESC, but favorable associations in KIRC and LGG. 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 STAM RNA expression.
This table summarizes STAM tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in LIHC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for STAM. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. STAM shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in LIHC, COAD, HNSC, THCA and BRCA. The LIHC box plot shows higher STAM RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.103, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with STAM in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, STAM 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, STAM RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Leukemia.
