1-94031046-G-T
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -21 ACMG points: 0P and 21B. BP4_StrongBP6_Very_StrongBP7BS1BS2
The NM_000350.3(ABCA4):c.4203C>A(p.Pro1401=) variant causes a synonymous change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.0309 in 1,614,092 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 920 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Likely benign (★★). Synonymous variant affecting the same amino acid position (i.e. P1401P) has been classified as Likely benign.
Frequency
Consequence
NM_000350.3 synonymous
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Benign. Variant got -21 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABCA4 | NM_000350.3 | c.4203C>A | p.Pro1401= | synonymous_variant | 28/50 | ENST00000370225.4 | |
ABCA4 | XM_047416704.1 | c.3981C>A | p.Pro1327= | synonymous_variant | 27/49 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABCA4 | ENST00000370225.4 | c.4203C>A | p.Pro1401= | synonymous_variant | 28/50 | 1 | NM_000350.3 | P1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes ? AF: 0.0218 AC: 3312AN: 152172Hom.: 47 Cov.: 32
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.0235 AC: 5912AN: 251302Hom.: 99 AF XY: 0.0234 AC XY: 3181AN XY: 135848
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.0319 AC: 46640AN: 1461802Hom.: 873 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.0312 AC XY: 22722AN XY: 727198
GnomAD4 genome ? AF: 0.0217 AC: 3310AN: 152290Hom.: 47 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.0206 AC XY: 1531AN XY: 74466
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not specified Benign:4
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | PreventionGenetics, part of Exact Sciences | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Joint Genome Diagnostic Labs from Nijmegen and Maastricht, Radboudumc and MUMC+ | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Jul 14, 2011 | This variant is considered likely benign or benign based on one or more of the following criteria: it is a conservative change, it occurs at a poorly conserved position in the protein, it is predicted to be benign by multiple in silico algorithms, and/or has population frequency not consistent with disease. - |
not provided Benign:1Other:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Invitae | Feb 01, 2024 | - - |
not provided, no classification provided | literature only | Retina International | - | - - |
Retinitis Pigmentosa, Recessive Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Jun 14, 2016 | - - |
Stargardt Disease, Recessive Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Jun 14, 2016 | - - |
ABCA4-related disorder Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Apr 27, 2017 | This variant was observed as part of a predisposition screen in an ostensibly healthy population. A literature search was performed for the gene, cDNA change, and amino acid change (where applicable). No publications were found based on this search. Allele frequency data from public databases allowed determination this variant is unlikely to cause disease. Therefore, this variant is classified as likely benign. - |
Cone-Rod Dystrophy, Recessive Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Jun 14, 2016 | - - |
Macular degeneration Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Jun 14, 2016 | - - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at