2-47800616-T-C
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -18 ACMG points: 2P and 20B. PM1BP4_StrongBP6_Very_StrongBS1BS2
The NM_000179.3(MSH6):c.2633T>C(p.Val878Ala) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.00574 in 1,614,190 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 45 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 15/19 in silico tools predict 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. V878G) has been classified as Uncertain significance.
Frequency
Consequence
NM_000179.3 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Benign. Variant got -18 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MSH6 | NM_000179.3 | c.2633T>C | p.Val878Ala | missense_variant | 4/10 | ENST00000234420.11 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MSH6 | ENST00000234420.11 | c.2633T>C | p.Val878Ala | missense_variant | 4/10 | 1 | NM_000179.3 | P4 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.00465 AC: 708AN: 152212Hom.: 5 Cov.: 32
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.00511 AC: 1280AN: 250386Hom.: 9 AF XY: 0.00559 AC XY: 757AN XY: 135488
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.00586 AC: 8568AN: 1461860Hom.: 40 Cov.: 34 AF XY: 0.00607 AC XY: 4411AN XY: 727234
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.00462 AC: 704AN: 152330Hom.: 5 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.00467 AC XY: 348AN XY: 74494
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not specified Benign:11Other:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Oct 11, 2013 | 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, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Center for Genomic Medicine, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital | Aug 15, 2023 | - - |
not provided, no classification provided | reference population | ITMI | Sep 19, 2013 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genetic Services Laboratory, University of Chicago | Sep 10, 2018 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Joint Genome Diagnostic Labs from Nijmegen and Maastricht, Radboudumc and MUMC+ | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Laboratory of Diagnostic Genome Analysis, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Women's Health and Genetics/Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp | Apr 25, 2016 | Variant summary: Variant affects a non-conserved nucleotide and results in a replacement of a medium size and hydrophobic Valine (V) with a small size and hydrophobic Alanine (A). 2/3 in silico tools predict the variant to be neutral (SNPs&GO and mutation taster were not considered due to low reliability index). The variant was observed in the large and broad cohorts of the ExAC project across diverse ethnicities at an allele frequency of 0.52% which exceeds ~ 36 times the maximal expected allele frequency of a disease causing MSH6 allele (0.0142%). Additionally, 4 homozygous occurrences are also reported in ExAC indicating neutrality. The variant was reported in several patients, however without strong evidence for pathogenicity. Independent functional studies concluded the variant to slightly impair MSH6 MMR functions however a large case control study failed to show association between CRC and the variant (Lipkin_NG_2004). Several clinical diagnostic centers and databases classify variant as Benign (without evidence to independently evaluate). Moreover, UMD lists two co-occurrences with the following pathogenic MSH6 variants: c.3268_3274del (p.Glu1090LysfsX23) and c.3514dup (p.Arg1172LysfsX5). Considering all evidence, the variant was classified as Benign. - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center | - | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Eurofins Ntd Llc (ga) | Feb 23, 2018 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Mayo Clinic | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | PreventionGenetics, part of Exact Sciences | - | - - |
Lynch syndrome 5 Uncertain:2Benign:6
Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided | literature only | OMIM | Oct 01, 2001 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Mendelics | May 28, 2019 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genome Diagnostics Laboratory, Amsterdam University Medical Center | Sep 22, 2015 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | KCCC/NGS Laboratory, Kuwait Cancer Control Center | Jul 07, 2023 | - - |
Uncertain significance, 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 did not allow this variant to be ruled in or out of causing disease. Therefore, this variant is classified as a variant of unknown significance. - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genome Diagnostics Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht | Jul 28, 2017 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center | Sep 21, 2015 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen | - | - - |
Hereditary cancer-predisposing syndrome Benign:5
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Institute for Biomarker Research, Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, L.L.C. | Apr 18, 2023 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | True Health Diagnostics | Sep 11, 2018 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Color Diagnostics, LLC DBA Color Health | Jan 02, 2015 | - - |
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. - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | curation | Sema4, Sema4 | Sep 29, 2020 | - - |
not provided Benign:4
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | research | Biesecker Lab/Clinical Genomics Section, National Institutes of Health | Jul 13, 2012 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | CeGaT Center for Human Genetics Tuebingen | Aug 01, 2024 | MSH6: BP4, BS2 - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories | Nov 22, 2023 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | not provided | Breakthrough Genomics, Breakthrough Genomics | - | - - |
Endometrial carcinoma;C1833477:Lynch syndrome 5;C5436807:Mismatch repair cancer syndrome 3 Benign:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Fulgent Genetics, Fulgent Genetics | Apr 26, 2022 | - - |
Breast and/or ovarian cancer Benign:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | CHEO Genetics Diagnostic Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario | Apr 27, 2021 | - - |
Carcinoma of colon Benign:1
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Sinai Health System | - | The Val878Ala variant has been previously identified in the literature and by our laboratory. More than 39 probands have been cited in the literature including individuals with endometrial cancer, MSI, microsatellite Mutator phenotype (MMP), and individual meeting Amsterdam Criteria for Lynch syndrome (Charames 2000, Barnetson 2008, Jennifer 2008, Wasielewski 2010, Plaschke 2006, Korhonen 2008, Hampel 2006, Ohmiya 2001, Ohmiya 2001, Berends 2002, Peterlongo 2003, Lipkin 2004, Dovrat 2005). However, there was conflicting information as to the relationship of this variant with disease status. This variant was identified in combination with another variant on the other allele in two different individual, one of whom had a nonsense variant (Plaschke 2006, Ohmiya 2001) raising the possibility that this is a benign variant. Furthermore, over 51 control individuals have been identified with this variant in the literature. In one large case control study, 25/2384 cases had this variant and 46/2630 race matched controls (From Northern Israel and Haifa) were carriers of this variant (Lipkin 2004). The variant has also been observed in other populations at lower frequency (dbSNP:rs2020912). This variant is conserved in mammals and other vertebrates but not in fruitfly. In-silico analysis (Sift, AlignGVGD, MAPP) provide conflicting data, and this information is not very predictive of pathogenicity. In summary, based on the above information, the clinical significance of this variant cannot be determined with absolute certainty but we would lean towards a more likely benign role for this variant. - |
Lynch syndrome Benign:1
Benign, reviewed by expert panel | research | International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours (InSiGHT) | Sep 05, 2013 | Multifactorial likelihood analysis posterior probability <0.001 - |
Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal neoplasms Benign:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Feb 01, 2024 | - - |
Colorectal / endometrial cancer Benign:1
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | research | CSER _CC_NCGL, University of Washington | Jun 01, 2014 | - - |
Malignant tumor of breast Benign:1
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Center of Medical Genetics and Primary Health Care | - | - - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at