Q-omics provides the consensus-scored THPO profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. THPO expression is associated with patient survival in 27 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, THPO is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, THPO protein abundance shows 15,242 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KICH, and LSCC as cancer lineages where THPO 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 THPO — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes THPO survival associations across molecular data types. THPO RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (27), 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 THPO RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High THPO expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, ACC, KIRP, STAD and UCS, but favorable associations in SCLC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for THPO RNA expression.
This table summarizes THPO tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 3. The strongest signals are observed in KICH for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for THPO. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. THPO shows lower tumor expression in KICH, UCEC, CHOL and KIRP and higher tumor expression in BRCA and LUAD. The KICH box plot shows higher THPO RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.614, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with THPO in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, THPO shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, THPO 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 SOFT_TISSUE and KIDNEY.
