17-43106469-C-A
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -8 ACMG points: 2P and 10B. PM1BP4_ModerateBP6_Very_Strong
The ENST00000357654.9(BRCA1):c.199G>T(p.Asp67Tyr) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.0000827 in 1,596,780 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, with no homozygous occurrence. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Benign (★★★). Another variant affecting the same amino acid position, but resulting in a different missense (i.e. D67A) has been classified as Likely benign.
Frequency
Consequence
ENST00000357654.9 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Benign. Variant got -8 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRCA1 | NM_007294.4 | c.199G>T | p.Asp67Tyr | missense_variant | 4/23 | ENST00000357654.9 | NP_009225.1 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRCA1 | ENST00000357654.9 | c.199G>T | p.Asp67Tyr | missense_variant | 4/23 | 1 | NM_007294.4 | ENSP00000350283 | P4 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.0000591 AC: 9AN: 152198Hom.: 0 Cov.: 32
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.0000719 AC: 18AN: 250382Hom.: 0 AF XY: 0.0000665 AC XY: 9AN XY: 135336
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.0000852 AC: 123AN: 1444464Hom.: 0 Cov.: 28 AF XY: 0.0000834 AC XY: 60AN XY: 719438
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.0000591 AC: 9AN: 152316Hom.: 0 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.0000806 AC XY: 6AN XY: 74478
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
Breast-ovarian cancer, familial, susceptibility to, 1 Uncertain:2Benign:4Other:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | literature only | Counsyl | Oct 13, 2014 | - - |
Benign, reviewed by expert panel | curation | Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) | Aug 10, 2015 | IARC class based on posterior probability from multifactorial likelihood analysis, thresholds for class as per Plon et al. 2008 (PMID: 18951446). Class 1 based on posterior probability = 0.0000029 - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Apr 24, 2018 | 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). Publications were found based on this search. The evidence from the literature, in combination with allele frequency data from public databases where available, was sufficient to determine this variant is unlikely to cause disease. Therefore, this variant is classified as likely benign. - |
Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Sharing Clinical Reports Project (SCRP) | Mar 07, 2007 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | BRCAlab, Lund University | Mar 02, 2020 | - - |
Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC) (BRCA1) | May 29, 2002 | - - |
not provided, no classification provided | in vitro | Brotman Baty Institute, University of Washington | - | - - |
not specified Benign:7
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Aug 28, 2017 | 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. - |
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 | Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University | Apr 20, 2017 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | research | King Laboratory, University of Washington | Sep 01, 2019 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Cancer Genetics and Genomics Laboratory, British Columbia Cancer Agency | Apr 18, 2017 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Genome Diagnostics Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht | - | - - |
Hereditary cancer-predisposing syndrome Benign:3
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Color Diagnostics, LLC DBA Color Health | Jul 28, 2016 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | curation | Sema4, Sema4 | Aug 26, 2021 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Ambry Genetics | Nov 18, 2014 | This alteration is classified as 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. - |
Hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome Uncertain:1Benign:1
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | CHEO Genetics Diagnostic Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario | Aug 27, 2015 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Jan 31, 2024 | - - |
not provided Benign:2
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories | Aug 24, 2017 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Women's Health and Genetics/Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp | Jul 03, 2017 | Variant summary: This missense variant involves the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide and 3/5 in silico tools predict a pathogenic outcome. The variant is present at a low frequency in the control population (0.0076% in ExAC, 0.012% in European (Non-Finnish)), and has been reported in the literature in HBOC patients and families. Most of these publications, however, fail to provide co-segregation and co-occurrence data, and do not test for large deletions/insertions, and therefore do not provide strong evidence for the causality of this variant. In addition, one report, although a poster presentation, is provided by individuals from a reputable laboratory, Myriad, indicating the variant was found to co-occur with 9 pathogenic variants (gene and variants not specified) and was classified as benign. UMD lists variant in 15 individuals with classification of "1-Neutral". One of them carried a pathogenic BRCA2 variant c.1773_1776delTTAT (p.Ile591MetfsX22). Furthermore, several functional studies have been published and showed that the c.199G>T variant had a moderate effect on centrosome duplication (Kais_2012, Towler_2013), chromosomal instability, (Cochran_2015), and resulted in a moderate reduction in E3 ligase activity, but that the mutant protein had similar binding of BRCA1 to BARD1 (Caleca_2014, Ransburgh_2010, Morris_2006, Starita_2015) and wild-type levels of E2 interaction (Morris_2006). There was no difference in homologous recombination (Kais_2012, Ransburgh_2010), double strand break repair by the single-strand annealing pathway (Towler_2013), yeast colony size, spot formation, and yeast localization (Thouvenot_2016) between mutant BRCA1 with this variant and wild-type BRCA1. This variant also had no effect on splicing via patient cDNA and minigene splicing assay (Houdayer_2012, Thery_2011). Additionally, multifactorial probability based models showed a low odds in favor of causality (Lindor_2012, Easton_2007). In addition, multiple reputable databases, UMD, ARUP, and clincial labs classify the variant as "benign/likely benign, at-least 2 of whom have submitted/updated their submissions to ClinVar since the time of the previous classification of this variant in our laboratory." Therefore, taking all evidence into consideration, the variant of interest is classified as benign. - |
Breast and/or ovarian cancer Uncertain:1
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | research | CSER _CC_NCGL, University of Washington | Jun 01, 2014 | Low GERP score may suggest that this variant may belong in a lower pathogenicity class - |
Familial cancer of breast;C2676676:Breast-ovarian cancer, familial, susceptibility to, 1;C3280442:Pancreatic cancer, susceptibility to, 4;C4554406:Fanconi anemia, complementation group S Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Fulgent Genetics, Fulgent Genetics | Aug 04, 2021 | - - |
Malignant tumor of breast Benign:1
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Sinai Health System | - | The BRCA1 p.Asp67Tyr variant was identified in 4 of 1760 proband chromosomes from individuals or families with breast or ovarian cancer (Blay 2013, Diez 2003); however, control chromosomes from healthy individuals were not evaluated in these studies. The variant was also identified HGMD, LOVD, the BIC database (8X with unknown clinical importance), and UMD (15X as a neutral variant). In UMD, the variant was found to co-occur with a pathogenic BRCA2 mutation (c.1773_1776delTTAT (p.Ile591MetfsX22)) in one sample, increasing the likelihood that the p.Asp67Tyr variant may not have clinical significance. The variant was listed in dbSNP (ID: rs80357102) “With allele of Uncertain significance”, with a minor allele frequency of 0.0005 (1000 Genomes Project), and in the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project (Exome Variant Server) in 2 of 8582 European American alleles; however the low number and frequency of this variant in these populations is not substantive enough to determine the prevalence of this variant in the general population. This residue is not conserved in mammals and lower organisms and computational analyses (PolyPhen-2, SIFT, AlignGVGD) provide inconsistent predictions regarding the impact to the protein; this information is not very predictive of pathogenicity. Several function studies found the variant to have a neutral effect on BRCA1 function, including assays evaluating protein binding, homology directed recombination, and single-strand annealing repair (Atipairin 2011, Bouwman 2013, Caleca 2014, Morris 2006, Ransburgh 2010, Towler 2013). One study found that the variant had an intermediate effect on centrosome amplification; however, the authors suggest that this may be on the high end of the normal range (Kais 2012). In addition, two in silico studies using multifactorial probability based models found this variant to be neutral (Easton 2007, Lindor 2012). Furthermore, Myriad classifies this variant as “Favor polymorphism” (personal communication). In summary, based on the above information, this variant meets our laboratory's criteria to be classified as benign. - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at