Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TTF2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TTF2 expression is associated with patient survival in 21 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TTF2 is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in BLCA. Additionally, TTF2 protein abundance shows 31,710 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight LIHC, BLCA, and GBM as cancer lineages where TTF2 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 TTF2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TTF2 survival associations across molecular data types. TTF2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (21), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TTF2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TTF2 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC, KICH, LGG, MESO and ACC, but favorable associations in READ. 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 TTF2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TTF2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 16, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 8. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TTF2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TTF2 shows higher tumor expression in BLCA, LUAD, KIRP, STAD, HNSC and LIHC. The BLCA box plot shows higher TTF2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.435, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TTF2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TTF2 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, TTF2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BONE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
