Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TEKT4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TEKT4 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in STAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TEKT4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in LUSC. Additionally, TEKT4 RNA expression shows 10,686 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight STAD, LUSC, and KIRP as cancer lineages where TEKT4 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 TEKT4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TEKT4 survival associations across molecular data types. TEKT4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TEKT4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TEKT4 expression shows unfavorable associations in STAD and KIRC, but favorable associations in BRCA, UCEC, LIHC and PAAD. The STAD 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 STAD as the clearest survival context for TEKT4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TEKT4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in LUSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TEKT4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TEKT4 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC, LUAD and THCA and higher tumor expression in KIRP, BRCA and BLCA. The LUSC box plot shows higher TEKT4 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.168, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TEKT4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TEKT4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TEKT4 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 LARGE_INTESTINE and OVARY.
