Q-omics provides the consensus-scored XPO4 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. XPO4 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, XPO4 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in COAD. Additionally, XPO4 RNA expression shows 21,013 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in UVM. Together, these results highlight KIRC, COAD, and UVM as cancer lineages where XPO4 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 XPO4 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes XPO4 survival associations across molecular data types. XPO4 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (23), followed by mutation status (7) and mass-spec protein abundance (6). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible XPO4 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High XPO4 expression shows unfavorable associations in CESC, ACC, UVM and MESO, 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 XPO4 RNA expression.
This table summarizes XPO4 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 4. The strongest signals are observed in COAD for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for XPO4. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. XPO4 shows lower tumor expression in THCA, LUAD and LUSC and higher tumor expression in COAD, STAD and LIHC. The COAD box plot shows higher XPO4 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +1.025, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with XPO4 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, XPO4 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, XPO4 RNA and mutation anchors are most strongly linked to RNA-expression features, especially in CNS, while CRISPR and shRNA rows add functional-dependency signals in SKIN and BLOOD_Lymphoma.
