5-90811291-A-G
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -20 ACMG points: 0P and 20B. BP4_StrongBP6_Very_StrongBA1
The ENST00000405460.9(ADGRV1):āc.16031A>Gā(p.Glu5344Gly) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.97 in 1,612,382 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 759,533 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 13/19 in silico tools predict a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Benign (ā ā ). Another nucleotide change resulting in same amino acid change has been previously reported as Likely benignin ClinVar. Synonymous variant affecting the same amino acid position (i.e. E5344E) has been classified as Likely benign.
Frequency
Consequence
ENST00000405460.9 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Benign. Variant got -20 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ADGRV1 | NM_032119.4 | c.16031A>G | p.Glu5344Gly | missense_variant | 74/90 | ENST00000405460.9 | NP_115495.3 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ADGRV1 | ENST00000405460.9 | c.16031A>G | p.Glu5344Gly | missense_variant | 74/90 | 1 | NM_032119.4 | ENSP00000384582 | P1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.939 AC: 142915AN: 152140Hom.: 67375 Cov.: 33
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.970 AC: 238719AN: 246210Hom.: 115886 AF XY: 0.972 AC XY: 129857AN XY: 133580
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.973 AC: 1421241AN: 1460124Hom.: 692126 Cov.: 39 AF XY: 0.974 AC XY: 707375AN XY: 726148
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.939 AC: 143001AN: 152258Hom.: 67407 Cov.: 33 AF XY: 0.941 AC XY: 70051AN XY: 74464
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not specified Benign:6
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | PreventionGenetics, part of Exact Sciences | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Mass General Brigham Personalized Medicine | Feb 02, 2012 | Caucasian frequency = 6466/6644 (ESP data) - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Eurofins Ntd Llc (ga) | Mar 06, 2013 | - - |
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Genetic Services Laboratory, University of Chicago | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Joint Genome Diagnostic Labs from Nijmegen and Maastricht, Radboudumc and MUMC+ | - | - - |
Usher syndrome type 2C 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 | Aug 10, 2021 | - - |
not provided Benign:2
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Feb 01, 2024 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Mar 03, 2015 | - - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at