Q-omics provides the consensus-scored XKR4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. XKR4 expression is associated with patient survival in 23 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, XKR4 is differentially expressed in 13, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, XKR4 RNA expression shows 14,698 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRP. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and KIRP as cancer lineages where XKR4 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 XKR4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes XKR4 survival associations across molecular data types. XKR4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (8) and mass-spec protein abundance (1). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible XKR4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High XKR4 expression shows unfavorable associations in KIRC, UVM and LUAD, but favorable associations in ESCA, PAAD and SKCM. The KIRC 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 KIRC as the clearest survival context for XKR4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes XKR4 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 13. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for XKR4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. XKR4 shows lower tumor expression in COAD, KIRC, BLCA, KICH and STAD and higher tumor expression in KIRP. The COAD box plot shows higher XKR4 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.532, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with XKR4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, XKR4 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with KIRP recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, XKR4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in LUNG_SCLC, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in LARGE_INTESTINE and BONE.
