Q-omics provides the consensus-scored UGDH profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. UGDH expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, UGDH is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, UGDH protein abundance shows 20,335 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Together, these results highlight KIRP, COAD, and BRCA as cancer lineages where UGDH 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 UGDH — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes UGDH survival associations across molecular data types. UGDH RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (1) 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 UGDH RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High UGDH expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRP, LIHC, ACC and ESCA, but favorable associations in BRCA and HNSC. 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 UGDH RNA expression.
This table summarizes UGDH tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in LUAD for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for UGDH. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. UGDH shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KICH and THCA and higher tumor expression in LUAD, HNSC and BRCA. The COAD box plot shows higher UGDH RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −1.924, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with UGDH in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, UGDH shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with BRCA recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, UGDH RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in SKIN, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BREAST and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
