TRAF interacting protein with forkhead associated domainGenealiases: T2BP · T6BP · TIFAA
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TIFA profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TIFA expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TIFA is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, TIFA RNA expression shows 19,995 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KICH, THCA, and UVM as cancer lineages where TIFA 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 TIFA — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TIFA survival associations across molecular data types. TIFA RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by 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 TIFA RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TIFA expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH, LGG and UVM, but favorable associations in HNSC, KIRC and SKCM. The KICH 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 KICH as the clearest survival context for TIFA RNA expression.
This table summarizes TIFA tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TIFA. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TIFA shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, BLCA, LIHC, KIRP and UCEC. The THCA box plot shows higher TIFA RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.133, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TIFA in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TIFA shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TIFA RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and BREAST.
