Yip1 domain family member 5Genealiases: FinGER5 · MEDS2 · SB140 · SMAP-5 · SMAP5 · YIP1A
Q-omics provides the consensus-scored YIPF5 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. YIPF5 expression is associated with patient survival in 25 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in HNSC. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, YIPF5 is differentially expressed in 14, with the highest sampling consensus in KIRC. Additionally, YIPF5 protein abundance shows 21,097 significant protein co-abundance associations, with the highest sampling consensus in CCRCC. Together, these results highlight HNSC, KIRC, and CCRCC as cancer lineages where YIPF5 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 YIPF5 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes YIPF5 survival associations across molecular data types. YIPF5 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (25), followed by mutation status (3) and mass-spec protein abundance (5). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible YIPF5 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High YIPF5 expression shows unfavorable associations in HNSC, CESC, SCLC, KIRP and LIHC, but favorable associations in KIRC. The HNSC 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 HNSC as the clearest survival context for YIPF5 RNA expression.
This table summarizes YIPF5 tumor–normal expression differences by data type. RNA shows broader differences across cancer types, with a lineage consensus of 14, while mass-spec protein shows differences in 5. The strongest signals are observed in KIRC for RNA and COAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for YIPF5. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. YIPF5 shows lower tumor expression in THCA and higher tumor expression in KIRC, HNSC, BLCA, LUAD and LIHC. The KIRC box plot shows higher YIPF5 RNA expression in tumor versus normal tissue (log2 FC = +0.702, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with YIPF5 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, YIPF5 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with CCRCC recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, YIPF5 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_Lymphoma and LARGE_INTESTINE.
