Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TUT4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TUT4 expression is associated with patient survival in 26 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TUT4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, TUT4 protein abundance shows 24,738 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in PDAC. Together, these results highlight HNSC, and PDAC as cancer lineages where TUT4 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 TUT4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TUT4 survival associations across molecular data types. TUT4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (26), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (7). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible TUT4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TUT4 expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG and SARC, but favorable associations in HNSC, KIRC, UCS and READ. The HNSC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify HNSC as the clearest survival context for TUT4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TUT4 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LSCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for TUT4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TUT4 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, KICH and BRCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, LIHC and COAD. The HNSC box plot shows higher TUT4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.485, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TUT4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TUT4 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, TUT4 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 OESOPHAGUS and BLOOD_Leukemia.
