4-163351189-G-A
Variant summary
Our verdict is Likely benign. Variant got -4 ACMG points: 2P and 6B. PM2BP4_StrongBP6_Moderate
The NM_006174.4(NPY5R):c.916G>A(p.Glu306Lys) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.0000756 in 1,614,084 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 1 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 16/21 in silico tools predict a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Likely benign (★).
Frequency
Consequence
NM_006174.4 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Likely_benign. Variant got -4 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPY5R | NM_006174.4 | c.916G>A | p.Glu306Lys | missense_variant | 4/4 | ENST00000338566.8 | NP_006165.1 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPY5R | ENST00000338566.8 | c.916G>A | p.Glu306Lys | missense_variant | 4/4 | 1 | NM_006174.4 | ENSP00000339377 | P1 | |
NPY5R | ENST00000506953.1 | c.916G>A | p.Glu306Lys | missense_variant | 1/1 | ENSP00000423474 | P1 | |||
NPY5R | ENST00000515560.1 | c.916G>A | p.Glu306Lys | missense_variant | 4/4 | 2 | ENSP00000423917 | P1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.000125 AC: 19AN: 152166Hom.: 0 Cov.: 33
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.000394 AC: 99AN: 251320Hom.: 0 AF XY: 0.000412 AC XY: 56AN XY: 135846
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.0000705 AC: 103AN: 1461800Hom.: 1 Cov.: 33 AF XY: 0.0000715 AC XY: 52AN XY: 727198
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.000125 AC: 19AN: 152284Hom.: 0 Cov.: 33 AF XY: 0.000188 AC XY: 14AN XY: 74464
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not provided Benign:1
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Dec 31, 2019 | - - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at