Q-omics provides the consensus-scored WDR4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. WDR4 expression is associated with patient survival in 28 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, WDR4 is differentially expressed in 17, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, WDR4 protein abundance shows 19,048 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight ACC, COAD, and LSCC as cancer lineages where WDR4 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 WDR4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes WDR4 survival associations across molecular data types. WDR4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (28), 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 WDR4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High WDR4 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, UVM, MESO, LIHC, KIRC and LGG. The ACC 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 ACC as the clearest survival context for WDR4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes WDR4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 17, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in BLCA for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for WDR4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. WDR4 shows higher tumor expression in COAD, BLCA, LIHC, STAD, LUAD and KIRC. The COAD box plot shows higher WDR4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +2.273, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with WDR4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, WDR4 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, WDR4 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 BLOOD_Lymphoma and LARGE_INTESTINE.
