Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TMEM106B profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TMEM106B expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TMEM106B is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in LUAD. Additionally, TMEM106B RNA expression shows 20,456 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, LUAD, and THYM as cancer lineages where TMEM106B 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 TMEM106B — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TMEM106B survival associations across molecular data types. TMEM106B RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TMEM106B RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TMEM106B expression shows unfavorable associations in CESC, UVM and KIRP, but favorable associations in KIRC, COAD and PRAD. 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 TMEM106B RNA expression.
This table summarizes TMEM106B 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 8. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TMEM106B. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TMEM106B shows lower tumor expression in UCEC and KIRC and higher tumor expression in LUAD, BRCA, LIHC and CHOL. The LUAD box plot shows higher TMEM106B RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.283, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TMEM106B in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TMEM106B shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TMEM106B RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SKIN and CNS.
