Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TIGAR profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TIGAR expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TIGAR is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TIGAR RNA expression shows 18,667 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight MESO, HNSC, and UVM as cancer lineages where TIGAR 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 TIGAR — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TIGAR survival associations across molecular data types. TIGAR RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (3) 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 TIGAR RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TIGAR expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, ACC, LGG, COAD and LAML, but favorable associations in STAD. 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 TIGAR RNA expression.
This table summarizes TIGAR 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 11. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TIGAR. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TIGAR shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, STAD, LIHC, UCEC, COAD and ESCA. The HNSC box plot shows higher TIGAR RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.024, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TIGAR in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TIGAR 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, TIGAR 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 BLOOD_Leukemia and LUNG_SCLC.
