small ubiquitin like modifier 2Genealiases: HSMT3 · SMT3B · SMT3H2
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored SUMO2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. SUMO2 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, SUMO2 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, SUMO2 protein abundance shows 21,981 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and PDAC as cancer lineages where SUMO2 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 SUMO2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes SUMO2 survival associations across molecular data types. SUMO2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible SUMO2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High SUMO2 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, ACC, LIHC, SCLC, HNSC and UCEC. 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 SUMO2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes SUMO2 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 5. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for SUMO2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. SUMO2 shows lower tumor expression in KICH and higher tumor expression in HNSC, BLCA, LIHC, LUAD and KIRC. The HNSC box plot shows higher SUMO2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.194, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with SUMO2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, SUMO2 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, SUMO2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LIVER, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in KIDNEY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
