5-112843380-T-G
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -7 ACMG points: 0P and 7B. BP4_ModerateBP6BS2
The NM_000038.6(APC):āc.7786T>Gā(p.Ser2596Ala) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.0001 in 1,613,604 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, with no homozygous occurrence. 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 Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity (no stars).
Frequency
Consequence
NM_000038.6 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Benign. Variant got -7 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APC | NM_000038.6 | c.7786T>G | p.Ser2596Ala | missense_variant | 16/16 | ENST00000257430.9 | NP_000029.2 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APC | ENST00000257430.9 | c.7786T>G | p.Ser2596Ala | missense_variant | 16/16 | 5 | NM_000038.6 | ENSP00000257430 | P1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.0000329 AC: 5AN: 152092Hom.: 0 Cov.: 32
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.0000359 AC: 9AN: 250584Hom.: 0 AF XY: 0.0000221 AC XY: 3AN XY: 135452
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.000107 AC: 157AN: 1461512Hom.: 0 Cov.: 34 AF XY: 0.0000990 AC XY: 72AN XY: 727060
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.0000329 AC: 5AN: 152092Hom.: 0 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.0000404 AC XY: 3AN XY: 74288
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
Familial adenomatous polyposis 1 Uncertain:2Benign:2
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Jan 29, 2024 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Mendelics | Aug 22, 2023 | - - |
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Counsyl | Oct 19, 2016 | - - |
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Myriad Genetics, Inc. | Feb 17, 2023 | This variant is classified as a variant of uncertain significance as there is insufficient evidence to determine its impact on protein function and/or cancer risk. - |
not provided Uncertain:1Benign:3
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center | - | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Apr 09, 2021 | Not observed at a significant frequency in large population cohorts (Lek 2016); In silico analysis supports that this missense variant does not alter protein structure/function; This variant is associated with the following publications: (PMID: 25604157, 25710373, 27443514, 30404791, 29684080) - |
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center | - | - - |
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute San Juan Capistrano | Jun 28, 2021 | - - |
Hereditary cancer-predisposing syndrome Uncertain:1Benign:3
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Ambry Genetics | Feb 13, 2019 | 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. - |
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | True Health Diagnostics | Sep 11, 2018 | - - |
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | curation | Sema4, Sema4 | Apr 05, 2021 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Color Diagnostics, LLC DBA Color Health | Mar 22, 2016 | - - |
not specified Uncertain:1Benign:1
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories | Sep 26, 2016 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Women's Health and Genetics/Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp | Nov 30, 2018 | Variant summary: APC c.7786T>G (p.Ser2596Ala) results in a conservative amino acid change in the encoded protein sequence. Five of five in-silico tools predict a benign effect of the variant on protein function. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 4e-05 in 276400 control chromosomes, predominantly at a frequency of 8.7e-05 within the Non-Finnish European subpopulation in the gnomAD database. The observed variant frequency within Non-Finnish European control individuals in the gnomAD database is approximately 1.22 fold of the estimated maximal expected allele frequency for a pathogenic variant in APC causing Familial Adenomatous Polyposis phenotype (7.1e-05), strongly suggesting that the variant is a benign polymorphism found primarily in populations of Non-Finnish European origin. c.7786T>G has been reported in the literature in individuals affected with colorectal polyps, ovarian and endometrial cancer (Out_2015, Ring_2016, Schwarz_2015). These report(s) do not provide unequivocal conclusions about association of the variant with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. To our knowledge, no experimental evidence demonstrating an impact on protein function has been reported. Seven clinical diagnostic laboratories have submitted clinical-significance assessments for this variant to ClinVar after 2014 without evidence for independent evaluation, six classify as VUS and one classifies as likely benign. Based on the evidence outlined above, the variant was classified as likely benign. - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at