13-32379912-C-T

Variant summary

Our verdict is Likely benign. Variant got -3 ACMG points: 0P and 3B. BP4_ModerateBP6

The NM_000059.4(BRCA2):​c.9116C>T​(p.Pro3039Leu) variant causes a missense, splice region change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.0000614 in 1,613,014 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, with no homozygous occurrence. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 14/21 in silico tools predict a benign outcome for this variant. 3/3 splice prediction tools predict no significant impact on normal splicing. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity (no stars). Synonymous variant affecting the same amino acid position (i.e. P3039P) has been classified as Pathogenic.

Frequency

Genomes: 𝑓 0.000053 ( 0 hom., cov: 32)
Exomes 𝑓: 0.000062 ( 0 hom. )

Consequence

BRCA2
NM_000059.4 missense, splice_region

Scores

4
12
Splicing: ADA: 0.1487
2

Clinical Significance

Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity criteria provided, conflicting classifications U:7B:15

Conservation

PhyloP100: 2.24
Variant links:
Genes affected
BRCA2 (HGNC:1101): (BRCA2 DNA repair associated) Inherited mutations in BRCA1 and this gene, BRCA2, confer increased lifetime risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer. Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 are involved in maintenance of genome stability, specifically the homologous recombination pathway for double-strand DNA repair. The largest exon in both genes is exon 11, which harbors the most important and frequent mutations in breast cancer patients. The BRCA2 gene was found on chromosome 13q12.3 in human. The BRCA2 protein contains several copies of a 70 aa motif called the BRC motif, and these motifs mediate binding to the RAD51 recombinase which functions in DNA repair. BRCA2 is considered a tumor suppressor gene, as tumors with BRCA2 mutations generally exhibit loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the wild-type allele. [provided by RefSeq, May 2020]

Genome browser will be placed here

ACMG classification

Classification made for transcript

Verdict is Likely_benign. Variant got -3 ACMG points.

BP4
Computational evidence support a benign effect (MetaRNN=0.23628572).
BP6
Variant 13-32379912-C-T is Benign according to our data. Variant chr13-32379912-C-T is described in ClinVar as [Conflicting_classifications_of_pathogenicity]. Clinvar id is 52753.We mark this variant Likely_benign, oryginal submissions are: {Likely_benign=8, Benign=4, Uncertain_significance=2}. Variant chr13-32379912-C-T is described in Lovd as [Likely_benign].

Transcripts

RefSeq

Gene Transcript HGVSc HGVSp Effect Exon rank MANE Protein UniProt
BRCA2NM_000059.4 linkc.9116C>T p.Pro3039Leu missense_variant, splice_region_variant Exon 23 of 27 ENST00000380152.8 NP_000050.3 P51587

Ensembl

Gene Transcript HGVSc HGVSp Effect Exon rank TSL MANE Protein Appris UniProt
BRCA2ENST00000380152.8 linkc.9116C>T p.Pro3039Leu missense_variant, splice_region_variant Exon 23 of 27 5 NM_000059.4 ENSP00000369497.3 P51587
BRCA2ENST00000530893.7 linkc.8747C>T p.Pro2916Leu missense_variant, splice_region_variant Exon 23 of 27 1 ENSP00000499438.2 A0A590UJI7
BRCA2ENST00000614259.2 linkn.*1174C>T splice_region_variant, non_coding_transcript_exon_variant Exon 22 of 26 2 ENSP00000506251.1 A0A7P0TAP7
BRCA2ENST00000614259 linkn.*1174C>T 3_prime_UTR_variant Exon 22 of 25 2 ENSP00000506251.1 A0A7P0TAP7

Frequencies

GnomAD3 genomes
AF:
0.0000526
AC:
8
AN:
152168
Hom.:
0
Cov.:
32
show subpopulations
Gnomad AFR
AF:
0.0000483
Gnomad AMI
AF:
0.00
Gnomad AMR
AF:
0.0000655
Gnomad ASJ
AF:
0.00
Gnomad EAS
AF:
0.00
Gnomad SAS
AF:
0.00
Gnomad FIN
AF:
0.00
Gnomad MID
AF:
0.00
Gnomad NFE
AF:
0.0000735
Gnomad OTH
AF:
0.00
GnomAD3 exomes
AF:
0.0000886
AC:
22
AN:
248254
Hom.:
0
AF XY:
0.0000744
AC XY:
10
AN XY:
134368
show subpopulations
Gnomad AFR exome
AF:
0.000125
Gnomad AMR exome
AF:
0.000175
Gnomad ASJ exome
AF:
0.00
Gnomad EAS exome
AF:
0.00
Gnomad SAS exome
AF:
0.000197
Gnomad FIN exome
AF:
0.00
Gnomad NFE exome
AF:
0.0000717
Gnomad OTH exome
AF:
0.00
GnomAD4 exome
AF:
0.0000623
AC:
91
AN:
1460846
Hom.:
0
Cov.:
32
AF XY:
0.0000661
AC XY:
48
AN XY:
726676
show subpopulations
Gnomad4 AFR exome
AF:
0.000120
Gnomad4 AMR exome
AF:
0.000134
Gnomad4 ASJ exome
AF:
0.00
Gnomad4 EAS exome
AF:
0.0000757
Gnomad4 SAS exome
AF:
0.000128
Gnomad4 FIN exome
AF:
0.00
Gnomad4 NFE exome
AF:
0.0000567
Gnomad4 OTH exome
AF:
0.0000663
GnomAD4 genome
AF:
0.0000526
AC:
8
AN:
152168
Hom.:
0
Cov.:
32
AF XY:
0.0000673
AC XY:
5
AN XY:
74344
show subpopulations
Gnomad4 AFR
AF:
0.0000483
Gnomad4 AMR
AF:
0.0000655
Gnomad4 ASJ
AF:
0.00
Gnomad4 EAS
AF:
0.00
Gnomad4 SAS
AF:
0.00
Gnomad4 FIN
AF:
0.00
Gnomad4 NFE
AF:
0.0000735
Gnomad4 OTH
AF:
0.00
Bravo
AF:
0.0000416
ESP6500AA
AF:
0.00
AC:
0
ESP6500EA
AF:
0.000116
AC:
1
ExAC
AF:
0.0000824
AC:
10
Asia WGS
AF:
0.000289
AC:
1
AN:
3476

ClinVar

Significance: Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity
Submissions summary: Uncertain:7Benign:15
Revision: criteria provided, conflicting classifications
LINK: link

Submissions by phenotype

Breast-ovarian cancer, familial, susceptibility to, 2 Uncertain:3Benign:3
May 01, 2016
Department of Medical Genetics, University Hospital of North Norway
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Jun 25, 2013
Sharing Clinical Reports Project (SCRP)
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Mar 02, 2020
BRCAlab, Lund University
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Feb 20, 2004
Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC) (BRCA2)
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Jan 10, 2025
Department of Clinical Genetics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet
Significance: Benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

The following ACMG criteria was used: BS1_SUP; BP5_Strong; BS3_Strong -

Apr 21, 2016
Michigan Medical Genetics Laboratories, University of Michigan
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

not provided Uncertain:3Benign:2
Sep 01, 2024
CeGaT Center for Human Genetics Tuebingen
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

BRCA2: BP4, BS3:Supporting -

-
Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

-
Clinical Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Jan 20, 2023
Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute San Juan Capistrano
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Feb 12, 2021
ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

The BRCA2 c.9116C>T; p.Pro3039Leu variant (rs80359167) is reported in the literature in individuals affected with breast and ovarian cancer, but without clear association with disease (Azzollini 2016, Jarhelle 2017, Park 2017). This variant is also reported in ClinVar (Variation ID: 52753), and is found in the general population with an overall allele frequency of 0.0089% (22/248254 alleles) in the Genome Aggregation Database. The proline at codon 3039 is moderately conserved, and computational analyses are uncertain whether this variant is neutral or deleterious (REVEL: 0.349). In vitro assays show a neutral effect on homology directed repair activity (Guidugli 2018). Other computational analyses (Alamut v.2.11) predict that this variant may impact splicing by weakening the nearby canonical donor splice site, but in vitro functional studies show no effect on splicing (Colombo 2013, Menendez 2012). However, given the lack of clear clinical data, the clinical significance of the p.Pro3039Leu variant is uncertain at this time. References: Azzollini et al. Mutation detection rates associated with specific selection criteria for BRCA1/2 testing in 1854 high-risk families: A monocentric Italian study. Eur J Intern Med. 2016 Jul;32:65-71. Colombo M et al. Comparative in vitro and in silico analyses of variants in splicing regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and characterization of novel pathogenic mutations. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57173. Guidugli L et al. Assessment of the Clinical Relevance of BRCA2 Missense Variants by Functional and Computational Approaches. Am J Hum Genet. 2018 Feb 1;102(2):233-248. Jarhelle E et al. Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants found in a Norwegian breast or ovarian cancer cohort. Fam Cancer. 2017 Jan;16(1):1-16. Menendez M et al. Assessing the RNA effect of 26 DNA variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):979-92. Park et al. Identification of a Novel BRCA1 Pathogenic Mutation in Korean Patients Following Reclassification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variants According to the ACMG Standards and Guidelines Using Relevant Ethnic Controls. Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Oct;49(4):1012-1021. -

Hereditary cancer-predisposing syndrome Benign:4
Jan 20, 2025
Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, Catalan Institute of Oncology
Significance: Benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

BS1_Supporting, BS3, BP4, BP5_Moderate c.9116C>T, located in exon 23 of the BRCA2 gene, is predicted to result in the substitution of Pro by Leu at codon 3039, p.(Pro3039Leu). It was found in 6/30496 alleles, with a filter allele frequency of 0.0085% at 95% confidence, within the South Asian population in the gnomAD v2.1 (non-cancer, exome only subset) (BS1_Supporting). This position is located in a (potentially) clinically important functional domain. SpliceAI algorithm predicts no significant impact on splicing and the Bayesdel no-AF meta-predictor score for this variant (-0.141) suggests that it does not affect the protein function (BP4). It has been reported by two calibrated studies to affect protein function similar to benign control variants (PMIDs: 33609447, 29884841) (BS3). RNA studies indicate that this variant has no effect on mRNA splicing (r.9116c>u) (PMID: 23451180, 21735045). Published clinical data for a multifactorial likelihood analysis (PMID: 31131967) showed a combined LR=0,17 (BP5_Moderate). This variant has been reported in ClinVar (3x benign, 10x likely benign, 7x uncertain significance) and LOVD (4x likely benign, 11x uncertain significance) databases, and in BRCA Exchange database as Not Yet Reviwed. Based on currently available information, the variant c.9116C>T should be considered a benign variant. -

Oct 10, 2018
Ambry Genetics
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

This alteration is classified as likely benign based on a combination of the following: seen in unaffected individuals, population frequency, intact protein function, lack of segregation with disease, co-occurrence, RNA analysis, in silico models, amino acid conservation, lack of disease association in case-control studies, and/or the mechanism of disease or impacted region is inconsistent with a known cause of pathogenicity. -

Apr 21, 2021
Sema4, Sema4
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: curation

- -

Jul 21, 2016
Color Diagnostics, LLC DBA Color Health
Significance: Benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome Uncertain:1Benign:2
Aug 22, 2023
Mendelics
Significance: Benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Mar 22, 2024
Institute for Biomarker Research, Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, L.L.C.
Significance: Uncertain significance
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Jan 19, 2025
Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

not specified Benign:3
Mar 27, 2022
Women's Health and Genetics/Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp
Significance: Benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

Variant summary: BRCA2 c.9116C>T (p.Pro3039Leu) results in a non-conservative amino acid change in the encoded protein sequence. Three of five in-silico tools predict a damaging effect of the variant on protein function. 4/4 computational tools predict no significant impact on normal splicing. Functional studies confirm these predictions indicating this variant has no effect on mRNA splicing (e.g. Caux-Moncoutier_2009, Houdayer_2012, Menendez_2012, Colombo_2013). The variant allele was found at a frequency of 8.9e-05 in 248254 control chromosomes (gnomAD). This frequency is not higher than estimated for a pathogenic variant in BRCA2 causing Hereditary Breast And Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (8.9e-05 vs 0.00075), allowing no conclusion about variant significance. c.9116C>T has been reported in the literature in individuals affected with Hereditary Breast And Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (example, Coulet_2010, Azzollini_2016, Rodriguez-Balada_2016, Park_2017, Guo_2020) but it was also reported in controls (Guo_2020). These reports do not provide unequivocal conclusions about association of the variant with Hereditary Breast And Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. Co-occurrences with BRCA2 pathogenic variants have been observed at our laboratory and in the literature (BRCA2 c.658_659delGT, p.Val220IlefsX4 at our laboratory; BRCA2 c.2808_2811delACAA, p.Ala938ProfsX21 in Santonocito_2020), providing supporting evidence for a benign role. Experimental evidence evaluating an impact on protein function through utilization of a homologous recombination DNA-repair activity assay, determined the variant to be neutral (example, Guidugli_2018, Hart_2019, Richardson_2021). HDR assays qualify as a recognized gold standard on the basis of updated guidance provided by the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) working group. This working group has recommended strong functional evidence (ACMG BS3) as sufficient weightage for categorization as likely benign (Tavtigian_2018). Multiple ClinVar submitters (evaluation after 2014) cite the variant with a predominant consensus as as benign/likely benign and three ClinVar submitters (evaluation after 2014) cite it as uncertain significance. Based on the evidence outlined above, the variant was classified as benign. -

Apr 19, 2016
Genetic Services Laboratory, University of Chicago
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

- -

Feb 05, 2018
GeneDx
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: criteria provided, single submitter
Collection Method: clinical testing

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. -

Malignant tumor of breast Benign:1
-
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Sinai Health System
Significance: Likely benign
Review Status: no assertion criteria provided
Collection Method: clinical testing

The BRCA2 p.Pro3039Leu variant was identified in 8 of 6754 proband chromosomes (frequency: 0.001) from individuals or families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and was not identified in 1586 control chromosomes from healthy individuals (Park 2017, Azzollini 2016, Rodriguez-Balada 2016, Jarhelle 2016, Llort 2002). The variant was identified in dbSNP (rs80359167) as “with likely benign, uncertain significance allele”, ClinVar (classified as likely benign by Invitae, GeneDx, Ambry Genetics and 7 other submitters, uncertain significance by BIC and 1 other submitter and benign by Color), LOVD 3.0 (observed 9x) and UMD-LSDB (observed 19x). The variant was identified in control databases in 22 of 248,254 chromosomes at a frequency of 0.00009 increasing the likelihood this could be a low frequency benign variant (Genome Aggregation Database Feb 27, 2017). The variant was observed in the following populations: South Asian in 6 of 30,496 chromosomes (freq: 0.0002), Latino in 6 of 34,364 chromosomes (freq: 0.0002), African in 2 of 16,040 chromosomes (freq: 0.0001), European in 8 of 111,594 chromosomes (freq: 0.00007); it was not observed in the Ashkenazi Jewish, East Asian, Finnish, and Other populations. The variant was observed in UMD-LSDB in a sample with a co-occurring BRCA1 pathogenic variant (c.670+1G>T). In cDNA amplification assays, the variant had no observed effect on in vitro splicing (Rodriguez-Balada 2016, Colombo 2012, Houdayer 2012, Menedez 2012). The p.Pro3039 residue is conserved in mammals but not in more distantly related organisms, and four out of five computational analyses (PolyPhen-2, SIFT, AlignGVGD, BLOSUM, MutationTaster) suggest that the variant may impact the protein; however, this information is not predictive enough to assume pathogenicity. The p.Pro3039Leu variant occurs in the first base of the exon. This position has been shown to be part of the splicing consensus sequence and variants involving this position sometimes affect splicing. In addition, 1 of 4 in silico or computational prediction software programs (SpliceSiteFinder, MaxEntScan, NNSPLICE, GeneSplicer) predict a greater than 10% difference in splicing. In summary, based on the above information the clinical significance of this variant cannot be determined with certainty at this time although we would lean towards a more benign role for this variant. This variant is classified as likely benign. -

Computational scores

Source: dbNSFP v4.3

Name
Calibrated prediction
Score
Prediction
AlphaMissense
Benign
0.085
BayesDel_addAF
Benign
-0.13
T
BayesDel_noAF
Benign
-0.14
CADD
Benign
22
DANN
Uncertain
0.99
Eigen
Benign
0.033
Eigen_PC
Benign
0.062
FATHMM_MKL
Uncertain
0.85
D
M_CAP
Uncertain
0.12
D
MetaRNN
Benign
0.24
T;T
MetaSVM
Benign
-0.66
T
PrimateAI
Benign
0.33
T
PROVEAN
Benign
-2.0
N;N
REVEL
Uncertain
0.35
Sift
Benign
0.048
D;D
Sift4G
Benign
0.092
T;T
Vest4
0.34
MVP
0.88
MPC
0.021
ClinPred
0.028
T
GERP RS
3.9
gMVP
0.23

Splicing

Name
Calibrated prediction
Score
Prediction
dbscSNV1_ADA
Benign
0.15
dbscSNV1_RF
Benign
0.65
SpliceAI score (max)
0.080
Details are displayed if max score is > 0.2

Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at spliceailookup.broadinstitute.org

Publications

LitVar

Below is the list of publications found by LitVar. It may be empty.

Other links and lift over

dbSNP: rs80359167; hg19: chr13-32954049; COSMIC: COSV66455985; COSMIC: COSV66455985; API