Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TUBB profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TUBB expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TUBB is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TUBB protein abundance shows 26,693 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight KIRP, HNSC, and PDAC as cancer lineages where TUBB 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 TUBB — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TUBB survival associations across molecular data types. TUBB RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (2) 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 TUBB RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TUBB expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, KICH, ACC, LIHC, SARC and MESO. The KIRP 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 KIRP as the clearest survival context for TUBB RNA expression.
This table summarizes TUBB 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TUBB. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TUBB shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, KIRC, KIRP, COAD, LUSC and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher TUBB RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.429, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TUBB in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TUBB shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with PDAC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TUBB RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in OVARY, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and BLOOD_Leukemia.
