Q-omics provides the consensus-scored ZFP36 profile across patient tissues and cancer cell-line models. ZFP36 expression is associated with patient survival in 20 of 34 cancer types, with the highest sampling consensus in OV. Among the 18 cancer types available for tumor–normal comparison, ZFP36 is differentially expressed in 12, with the highest sampling consensus in KICH. Additionally, ZFP36 RNA expression shows 17,697 significant gene co-expression associations, with the highest sampling consensus in THYM. Together, these results highlight OV, KICH, and THYM as cancer lineages where ZFP36 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 ZFP36 — synthetic lethality, tumor antigen, and pembrolizumab response.
This table summarizes ZFP36 survival associations across molecular data types. ZFP36 RNA expression shows survival associations in the most cancer types (20), followed by mutation status (2) and mass-spec protein abundance (4). The rightmost column indicates the cancer type with the highest sampling consensus for each molecular layer.
This table ranks reproducible ZFP36 RNA expression–survival associations across cancer types. High ZFP36 expression shows unfavorable associations in OV, ACC, LGG, STAD, UVM and DLBC. The OV Kaplan–Meier curve shows clear separation, with the high-expression group declining faster, consistent with the unfavorable association (log-rank p = .001). Together, the overview and detailed table identify OV as the clearest survival context for ZFP36 RNA expression.
This table summarizes ZFP36 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 3. The strongest signals are observed in BLCA for RNA and LUAD for protein.
This table ranks reproducible tumor–normal expression differences for ZFP36. A negative fold-change indicates higher expression in normal tissue than in tumor tissue. ZFP36 shows lower tumor expression in KICH, BLCA, KIRP, HNSC, UCEC and LUSC. The KICH box plot shows higher ZFP36 RNA expression in normal versus tumor tissue (log2 FC = −4.034, t-test p < 0.001).
This table shows molecular features associated with ZFP36 in patient tissues and cancer cell lines. In patient samples, ZFP36 shows the broadest associations at the RNA and protein expression levels, with THYM recurring as the lineage with the largest associated feature set. In cancer cell lines, ZFP36 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 SOFT_TISSUE and BONE.
