Q-omics provides the consensus-scored WDR72 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. WDR72 expression is associated with patient survival in 22 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, WDR72 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, WDR72 RNA expression shows 16,445 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, and UVM as cancer lineages where WDR72 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 WDR72 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes WDR72 survival associations across molecular data types. WDR72 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (22), followed by mutation status (9) and mass-spec protein abundance (2). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible WDR72 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High WDR72 expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, COAD, DLBC and LGG, but favorable associations in KIRC and BRCA. The KIRC Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the low-expression group declining faster, consistent with the favorable association (log-rank p < 0.001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify KIRC as the clearest survival context for WDR72 RNA expression.
This table summarizes WDR72 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 2. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and CCRCC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for WDR72. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. WDR72 shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, THCA and KIRP and higher tumor expression in BLCA, HNSC and COAD. The KIRC box plot shows higher WDR72 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −2.097, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with WDR72 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, WDR72 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with UVM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, WDR72 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in STOMACH, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LUNG_NSCLC_LUSC and LARGE_INTESTINE.
