Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TMEM104 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TMEM104 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TMEM104 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TMEM104 protein abundance shows 21,608 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Together, these results highlight LIHC, and HNSC as cancer lineages where TMEM104 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 TMEM104 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TMEM104 survival associations across molecular data types. TMEM104 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (8). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TMEM104 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TMEM104 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC, BLCA, KIRC, UVM, ACC and LGG. The LIHC 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 LIHC as the clearest survival context for TMEM104 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TMEM104 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 15, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TMEM104. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TMEM104 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRP, LIHC, BLCA and STAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher TMEM104 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.212, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TMEM104 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TMEM104 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with HNSC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TMEM104 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and LARGE_INTESTINE.
