XPA, DNA damage recognition and repair factorGenealiases: XP1 · XPAC
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored XPA profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. XPA expression is associated with patient survival in 24 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in ACC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, XPA is differentially expressed in 11, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, XPA RNA expression shows 22,252 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in LSCC. Together, these results highlight ACC, KIRC, and LSCC as cancer lineages where XPA 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 XPA — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes XPA survival associations across molecular data types. XPA RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (24), followed by mutation status (1) and mass-spec protein abundance (10). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible XPA RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High XPA expression shows unfavorable associations in ACC, UVM, LIHC and HNSC, but favorable associations in KIRC and SKCM. 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 XPA RNA expression.
This table summarizes XPA 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 6. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for XPA. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. XPA shows lower tumor expression in KIRC, THCA, BLCA, LUAD, KICH and KIRP. The KIRC box plot shows higher XPA RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −0.672, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with XPA in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, XPA 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, XPA RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in BONE, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in BLOOD_Leukemia and LARGE_INTESTINE.
