Q-omics provides the consensus-scored WDR1 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. WDR1 expression is associated with patient survival in 29 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in MESO. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, WDR1 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in LIHC. Additionally, WDR1 protein abundance shows 33,608 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight MESO, LIHC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where WDR1 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 WDR1 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes WDR1 survival associations across molecular data types. WDR1 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (29), followed by mutation status (4) 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 WDR1 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High WDR1 expression shows unfavorable associations in MESO, LGG, ACC, LUAD and LUSC, but favorable associations in UCEC. The MESO 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 MESO as the clearest survival context for WDR1 RNA expression.
This table summarizes WDR1 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 10. The strongest signals are observed in LIHC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for WDR1. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. WDR1 shows lower tumor expression in BLCA and KIRC and higher tumor expression in LIHC, HNSC, BRCA and CHOL. The LIHC box plot shows higher WDR1 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.209, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with WDR1 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, WDR1 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, WDR1 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and BONE.
