transmembrane p24 trafficking protein 6Genealiases: PRO34237 · SPLL9146 · p24g5
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TMED6 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TMED6 expression is associated with patient survival in 19 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TMED6 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, TMED6 RNA expression shows 17,659 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, KICH, and UVM as cancer lineages where TMED6 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 TMED6 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TMED6 survival associations across molecular data types. TMED6 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (19), followed by mutation status (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TMED6 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TMED6 expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG, HNSC and COAD, but favorable associations in KIRC, UCEC and KIRP. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for TMED6 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TMED6 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TMED6. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TMED6 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, THCA, LUSC, BRCA and COAD and higher tumor expression in HNSC. The KICH box plot shows higher TMED6 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.247, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TMED6 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TMED6 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, TMED6 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LIVER, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SKIN and BLOOD_Leukemia.
