WASP homolog associated with actin, golgi membranes and microtubulesGenealiases: WHAMM1 · WHDC1
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored WHAMM profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. WHAMM expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in BRCA. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, WHAMM is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Additionally, WHAMM RNA expression shows 20,531 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Together, these results highlight BRCA, KIRP, and ACC as cancer lineages where WHAMM 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 WHAMM — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes WHAMM survival associations across molecular data types. WHAMM RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible WHAMM RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High WHAMM expression shows unfavorable associations in LGG, ESCA and KIRC, but favorable associations in BRCA, CESC and SKCM. The BRCA 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 BRCA as the clearest survival context for WHAMM RNA expression.
This table summarizes WHAMM tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 12, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 2. The strongest signals are observed in KIRP for RNA and HNSC for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for WHAMM. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. WHAMM shows lower tumor expression in BRCA and THCA and higher tumor expression in KIRP, KIRC, CHOL and HNSC. The KIRP box plot shows higher WHAMM RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.678, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with WHAMM in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, WHAMM shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with ACC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, WHAMM RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_NSCLC_LUAD, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
