Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TAF6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TAF6 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TAF6 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TAF6 protein abundance shows 20,428 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight MESO, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where TAF6 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 TAF6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TAF6 survival associations across molecular data types. TAF6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TAF6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TAF6 expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, KICH, CESC, ACC and LIHC, but favorable associations in UCS. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for TAF6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TAF6 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TAF6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TAF6 shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRP, COAD, LIHC, LUAD and LUSC. The HNSC box plot shows higher TAF6 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.185, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TAF6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TAF6 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, TAF6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LARGE_INTESTINE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OESOPHAGUS and BLOOD_Leukemia.
