Q-omics provides the consensus-scored UXS1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. UXS1 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, UXS1 is differentially expressed in 15, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, UXS1 protein abundance shows 20,434 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in GBM. Together, these results highlight LIHC, HNSC, and GBM as cancer lineages where UXS1 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 UXS1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes UXS1 survival associations across molecular data types. UXS1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (5) 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 UXS1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High UXS1 expression shows unfavorable associations in LIHC, BLCA, KIRP, LGG and HNSC, but favorable associations in KIRC. The LIHC 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 LIHC as the clearest survival context for UXS1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes UXS1 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for UXS1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. UXS1 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, KICH and LUAD and higher tumor expression in HNSC, COAD and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher UXS1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.325, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with UXS1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, UXS1 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with GBM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, UXS1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BREAST, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT and LARGE_INTESTINE.
