rs1060499973
Variant summary
Our verdict is Likely pathogenic. Variant got 9 ACMG points: 9P and 0B. PM2PM5PP2PP3_Strong
The NM_001370259.2(MEN1):c.830C>T(p.Pro277Leu) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a conserved nucleotide. The variant was absent in control chromosomes in GnomAD project. In-silico tool predicts a pathogenic outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Uncertain significance (★★). Another variant affecting the same amino acid position, but resulting in a different missense (i.e. P277H) has been classified as Pathogenic.
Frequency
Consequence
NM_001370259.2 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Likely_pathogenic. Variant got 9 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEN1 | NM_001370259.2 | c.830C>T | p.Pro277Leu | missense_variant | 6/10 | ENST00000450708.7 | NP_001357188.2 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MEN1 | ENST00000450708.7 | c.830C>T | p.Pro277Leu | missense_variant | 6/10 | 5 | NM_001370259.2 | ENSP00000394933 | P3 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes Cov.: 33
GnomAD4 exome Cov.: 33
GnomAD4 genome Cov.: 33
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
Multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 1 Uncertain:1
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Feb 08, 2018 | In summary, the available evidence is currently insufficient to determine the role of this variant in disease. Therefore, it has been classified as a Variant of Uncertain Significance. Algorithms developed to predict the effect of missense changes on protein structure and function (SIFT, PolyPhen-2, Align-GVGD) all suggest that this variant is likely to be disruptive, but these predictions have not been confirmed by published functional studies and their clinical significance is uncertain. This variant has been reported in an individual affected with familial isolated hyperparathyroidism (FIHP) (PMID: 26767918). This variant is not present in population databases (ExAC no frequency). This sequence change replaces proline with leucine at codon 277 of the MEN1 protein (p.Pro277Leu). The proline residue is highly conserved and there is a moderate physicochemical difference between proline and leucine. - |
not provided Uncertain:1
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories | Mar 05, 2021 | The MEN1 c.830C>T; p.Pro277Leu variant (rs1060499973), also known as p.Pro282Leu is reported in the literature in an individual affected with familial isolated hyperparathyroidism (FIHP) (Concolino 2016). This variant is also reported in ClinVar (Variation ID: 457340). This variant is absent from general population databases (Exome Variant Server, Genome Aggregation Database), indicating it is not a common polymorphism. Additionally, another variant at this codon (c.830C>A, p.Pro277His) has been reported in individuals with FIHP and is considered pathogenic (Perrier 2002, Shimazu 2011). The proline at codon 277 is highly conserved, and computational analyses predict that this variant is deleterious (REVEL: 0.98). However, given the lack of clinical and functional data, the significance of the p.Pro277Leu variant is uncertain at this time. References: Concolino P et al. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1): An update of 208 new germline variants reported in the last nine years. Cancer Genet. 2016 Jan-Feb;209(1-2):36-41. Perrier ND et al. Genetic screening for MEN1 mutations in families presenting with familial primary hyperparathyroidism. World J Surg. 2002 Aug;26(8):907-13. Shimazu S et al. Correlation of mutant menin stability with clinical expression of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 and its incomplete forms. Cancer Sci. 2011 Nov;102(11):2097-102. - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at