Q-omics provides the consensus-scored TWF2 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. TWF2 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, TWF2 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, TWF2 protein abundance shows 25,894 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight UVM, KIRP, and LSCC as cancer lineages where TWF2 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 TWF2 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes TWF2 survival associations across molecular data types. TWF2 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), 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 TWF2 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High TWF2 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, KIRC, LGG, LIHC and LAML, but favorable associations in SCLC. The UVM 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 UVM as the clearest survival context for TWF2 RNA expression.
This table summarizes TWF2 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13, 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 TWF2. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. TWF2 shows lower tumor expression in LUSC and higher tumor expression in KIRP, KIRC, LIHC, STAD and THCA. The KIRP box plot shows higher TWF2 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.226, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with TWF2 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, TWF2 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with LSCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, TWF2 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 PANCREAS and SOFT_TISSUE.
