Q-omics provides the consensus-scored WDR5 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. WDR5 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, WDR5 is differentially expressed in 16, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, WDR5 protein abundance shows 31,446 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight ACC, HNSC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where WDR5 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 WDR5 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes WDR5 survival associations across molecular data types. WDR5 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible WDR5 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High WDR5 expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, KIRC, KIRP and COAD, but favorable associations in SCLC and STAD. 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 WDR5 RNA expression.
This table summarizes WDR5 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 16, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 7. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for WDR5. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. WDR5 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in HNSC, COAD, KIRC, STAD and LIHC. The HNSC box plot shows higher WDR5 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.194, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with WDR5 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, WDR5 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, WDR5 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in PANCREAS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
