TATA element modulatory factor 1Genealiases: ARA160 · TMF
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TMF1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TMF1 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in SKCM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TMF1 is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in THCA. Additionally, TMF1 protein abundance shows 23,530 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight SKCM, THCA, and LSCC as cancer lineages where TMF1 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 TMF1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TMF1 survival associations across molecular data types. TMF1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (5) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TMF1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TMF1 expression shows unfavorable associations in KICH and CESC, but favorable associations in SKCM, HNSC, UCS and KIRC. The SKCM Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p = .002). Together, the overview and detailed table identify SKCM as the clearest survival context for TMF1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TMF1 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 10, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in THCA for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TMF1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TMF1 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, LUSC and KICH and higher tumor expression in LIHC, CHOL and STAD. The THCA box plot shows higher TMF1 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.692, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TMF1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TMF1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TMF1 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 SOFT_TISSUE and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
