Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TDRD5 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TDRD5 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TDRD5 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, TDRD5 RNA expression shows 15,099 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight LIHC, KIRC, and THYM as cancer lineages where TDRD5 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 TDRD5 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TDRD5 survival associations across molecular data types. TDRD5 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TDRD5 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TDRD5 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC and UCEC, but favorable associations in UVM, KIRP, READ and KICH. The LIHC 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 LIHC as the clearest survival context for TDRD5 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TDRD5 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 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TDRD5. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TDRD5 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, KICH and KIRP and higher tumor expression in HNSC, BLCA and LUAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher TDRD5 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.317, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TDRD5 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TDRD5 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TDRD5 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BLOOD_Lymphoma, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and BREAST.
