Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TNFRSF10D profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TNFRSF10D expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in CESC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TNFRSF10D is differentially expressed in 10, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, TNFRSF10D RNA expression shows 19,185 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight CESC, KIRC, and GBM as cancer lineages where TNFRSF10D 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 TNFRSF10D — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TNFRSF10D survival associations across molecular data types. TNFRSF10D RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (3). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TNFRSF10D RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TNFRSF10D expression shows unfavorable associations in CESC, LGG, MESO and LUSC, but favorable associations in SKCM and KIRC. The CESC 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 CESC as the clearest survival context for TNFRSF10D RNA expression.
This table summarizes TNFRSF10D 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 1. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TNFRSF10D. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TNFRSF10D shows lower tumor expression in KICH, LUAD, LUSC and BRCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC and STAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher TNFRSF10D RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.771, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TNFRSF10D in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TNFRSF10D shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TNFRSF10D 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 KIDNEY and BLOOD_Leukemia.
