2-169196995-C-T
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -19 ACMG points: 1P and 20B. PP2BP4_StrongBP6_Very_StrongBA1
The NM_004525.3(LRP2):c.8614G>A(p.Ala2872Thr) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.268 in 1,613,604 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 61,712 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 15/20 in silico tools predict a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Benign (★★).
Frequency
Consequence
NM_004525.3 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Benign. Variant got -19 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LRP2 | NM_004525.3 | c.8614G>A | p.Ala2872Thr | missense_variant | 46/79 | ENST00000649046.1 | NP_004516.2 | |
LRP2 | XM_011511183.4 | c.8614G>A | p.Ala2872Thr | missense_variant | 46/78 | XP_011509485.1 | ||
LRP2 | XM_047444340.1 | c.7690G>A | p.Ala2564Thr | missense_variant | 46/79 | XP_047300296.1 | ||
LRP2 | XM_011511184.3 | c.6325G>A | p.Ala2109Thr | missense_variant | 31/64 | XP_011509486.1 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LRP2 | ENST00000649046.1 | c.8614G>A | p.Ala2872Thr | missense_variant | 46/79 | NM_004525.3 | ENSP00000496870.1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.253 AC: 38454AN: 152042Hom.: 5331 Cov.: 33
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.267 AC: 67115AN: 251132Hom.: 10287 AF XY: 0.263 AC XY: 35695AN XY: 135720
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.270 AC: 394385AN: 1461444Hom.: 56381 Cov.: 35 AF XY: 0.267 AC XY: 194018AN XY: 727046
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.253 AC: 38461AN: 152160Hom.: 5331 Cov.: 33 AF XY: 0.254 AC XY: 18916AN XY: 74374
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not specified Benign:4
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+ | - | - - |
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Genetic Services Laboratory, University of Chicago | - | Likely benign based on allele frequency in 1000 Genomes Project or ESP global frequency and its presence in a patient with a rare or unrelated disease phenotype. NOT Sanger confirmed. - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen | - | - - |
not provided Benign:3
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Jan 18, 2020 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Feb 01, 2024 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | not provided | Breakthrough Genomics, Breakthrough Genomics | - | - - |
Donnai-Barrow syndrome Benign:2
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Jan 13, 2018 | This variant was observed in the ICSL laboratory as part of a predisposition screen in an ostensibly healthy population. It had not been previously curated by ICSL or reported in the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD: prior to June 1st, 2018), and was therefore a candidate for classification through an automated scoring system. Utilizing variant allele frequency, disease prevalence and penetrance estimates, and inheritance mode, an automated score was calculated to assess if this variant is too frequent to cause the disease. Based on the score and internal cut-off values, a variant classified as benign is not then subjected to further curation. The score for this variant resulted in a classification of benign for this disease. - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genome-Nilou Lab | Jul 15, 2021 | - - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at