Q-omics provides the consensus-scored XIAP profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. XIAP expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, XIAP is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Additionally, XIAP RNA expression shows 20,798 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, HNSC, and UVM as cancer lineages where XIAP 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 XIAP — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes XIAP survival associations across molecular data types. XIAP RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (2) 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 XIAP RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High XIAP expression shows unfavorable associations in UVM, PAAD and KIRP, but favorable associations in KIRC, SKCM and ACC. 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 XIAP RNA expression.
This table summarizes XIAP tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 11, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 4. The strongest signals are observed in HNSC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for XIAP. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. XIAP shows higher tumor expression in HNSC, LIHC, STAD, BLCA, LUAD and BRCA. The HNSC box plot shows higher XIAP RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.362, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with XIAP in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, XIAP 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, XIAP RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in URINARY_TRACT, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and UPPER_AERODIGESTIVE_TRACT.
