Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TUBG2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TUBG2 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TUBG2 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TUBG2 RNA expression shows 19,697 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight COAD, HNSC, and UVM as cancer lineages where TUBG2 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 TUBG2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TUBG2 survival associations across molecular data types. TUBG2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TUBG2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TUBG2 expression shows unfavorable associations in COAD, LIHC, OV, UVM and CESC, but favorable associations in LUAD. The COAD 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 COAD as the clearest survival context for TUBG2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TUBG2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TUBG2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TUBG2 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, BRCA and BLCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, LIHC and CHOL. The HNSC box plot shows higher TUBG2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.008, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TUBG2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TUBG2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TUBG2 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SOFT_TISSUE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in OVARY and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
