rs147236883

Variant names:

Variant summary

Our verdict is Likely benign. The variant received -6 ACMG points: 1P and 7B. PP3BP4_ModerateBP6BS1

The NM_001369.3(DNAH5):c.8002G>A(p.Gly2668Arg) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.000195 in 1,613,886 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, with no homozygous occurrence. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity (no stars).

Frequency

Genomes: 𝑓 0.0011 ( 0 hom., cov: 33)

Exomes 𝑓: 0.00010 ( 0 hom. )

Consequence

DNAH5
NM_001369.3 missense

Scores

Clinical Significance

Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity criteria provided, conflicting classifications U:5B:3

Conservation

PhyloP100: 7.66

Publications

3 publications found

Variant links:

Genes affected

DNAH5 (HGNC:2950): (dynein axonemal heavy chain 5) This gene encodes a dynein protein, which is part of a microtubule-associated motor protein complex consisting of heavy, light, and intermediate chains. This protein is an axonemal heavy chain dynein. It functions as a force-generating protein with ATPase activity, whereby the release of ADP is thought to produce the force-producing power stroke. Mutations in this gene cause primary ciliary dyskinesia type 3, as well as Kartagener syndrome, which are both diseases due to ciliary defects. [provided by RefSeq, Oct 2009]

DNAH5 Gene-Disease associations (from GenCC):

primary ciliary dyskinesia 3
Inheritance: AR Classification: DEFINITIVE, STRONG Submitted by: PanelApp Australia, Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), G2P, ClinGen
primary ciliary dyskinesia
Inheritance: AD Classification: SUPPORTIVE Submitted by: Orphanet

DNAH5 links:

Genome browser will be placed here

ACMG classification

Classification was made for transcript

Our verdict: Likely_benign. The variant received -6 ACMG points.

PP3

Multiple lines of computational evidence support a deleterious effect 10: AlphaMissense, BayesDel_noAF, Dann, Eigen, MutationAssessor, phyloP100way_vertebrate, PrimateAI, PROVEAN, REVEL, REVEL [when BayesDel_addAF, max_spliceai, FATHMM_MKL, MetaRNN, MutationTaster was below the threshold]

BP4

Computational evidence support a benign effect (MetaRNN=0.10712445).

BP6

Variant 5-13793944-C-T is Benign according to our data. Variant chr5-13793944-C-T is described in ClinVar as Conflicting_classifications_of_pathogenicity. ClinVar VariationId is 351057.

BS1

Variant frequency is greater than expected in population afr. GnomAd4 allele frequency = 0.0011 (167/152190) while in subpopulation AFR AF = 0.00388 (161/41518). AF 95% confidence interval is 0.00339. There are 0 homozygotes in GnomAd4. There are 78 alleles in the male GnomAd4 subpopulation. Median coverage is 33. This position passed quality control check.

Transcripts

RefSeq

Gene	Transcript	HGVSc	HGVSp	Effect	Exon rank	MANE	Protein	UniProt
DNAH5	NM_001369.3 link	c.8002G>A	p.Gly2668Arg	missense_variant	Exon 48 of 79	ENST00000265104.5	NP_001360.1	Q8TE73

Ensembl

Gene	Transcript	HGVSc	HGVSp	Effect	Exon rank	TSL	MANE	Protein	Appris	UniProt
DNAH5	ENST00000265104.5 link	c.8002G>A	p.Gly2668Arg	missense_variant	Exon 48 of 79	1	NM_001369.3	ENSP00000265104.4		Q8TE73
DNAH5	ENST00000681290.1 link	c.7957G>A	p.Gly2653Arg	missense_variant	Exon 48 of 79			ENSP00000505288.1		A0A7P0Z455

Frequencies

GnomAD3 genomes

AF:

0.00109

AC:

165

AN:

152072

Hom.:

Cov.:

show subpopulations

Gnomad AFR

AF:

0.00384

Gnomad AMI

AF:

0.00

Gnomad AMR

AF:

0.000327

Gnomad ASJ

AF:

0.00

Gnomad EAS

AF:

0.00

Gnomad SAS

AF:

0.00

Gnomad FIN

AF:

0.00

Gnomad MID

AF:

0.00

Gnomad NFE

AF:

0.00

Gnomad OTH

AF:

0.000478

GnomAD2 exomes

AF:

0.000279

AC:

AN:

250822

AF XY:

0.000162

show subpopulations

Gnomad AFR exome

AF:

0.00400

Gnomad AMR exome

AF:

0.000116

Gnomad ASJ exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad EAS exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad FIN exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad NFE exome

AF:

0.00000883

Gnomad OTH exome

AF:

0.00

GnomAD4 exome

AF:

0.000101

AC:

147

AN:

1461696

Hom.:

Cov.:

AF XY:

0.0000743

AC XY:

AN XY:

727166

show subpopulations

African (AFR)

AF:

0.00364

AC:

122

AN:

33476

American (AMR)

AF:

0.000134

AC:

AN:

44720

Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

26130

East Asian (EAS)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

39676

South Asian (SAS)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

86246

European-Finnish (FIN)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

53402

Middle Eastern (MID)

AF:

0.000173

AC:

AN:

5768

European-Non Finnish (NFE)

AF:

8.99e-7

AC:

AN:

1111890

Other (OTH)

AF:

0.000282

AC:

AN:

60388

Allele Balance Distribution

Red line indicates average allele balance

Average allele balance: 0.446

Heterozygous variant carriers

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.95

Allele balance

Age Distribution

Exome Het

Variant carriers

<30

30-35

35-40

40-45

45-50

50-55

55-60

60-65

65-70

70-75

75-80

>80

Age

GnomAD4 genome

AF:

0.00110

AC:

167

AN:

152190

Hom.:

Cov.:

AF XY:

0.00105

AC XY:

AN XY:

74390

show subpopulations

African (AFR)

AF:

0.00388

AC:

161

AN:

41518

American (AMR)

AF:

0.000327

AC:

AN:

15294

Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

3470

East Asian (EAS)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

5192

South Asian (SAS)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

4798

European-Finnish (FIN)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

10592

Middle Eastern (MID)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

294

European-Non Finnish (NFE)

AF:

0.00

AC:

AN:

68008

Other (OTH)

AF:

0.000473

AC:

AN:

2112

Allele Balance Distribution

Red line indicates average allele balance

Average allele balance: 0.499

Heterozygous variant carriers

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.95

Allele balance

Age Distribution

Genome Het

Variant carriers

<30

30-35

35-40

40-45

45-50

50-55

55-60

60-65

65-70

70-75

75-80

>80

Age

Alfa

AF:

0.000391

Hom.:

Bravo

AF:

0.00122

ESP6500AA

AF:

0.00272

AC:

ESP6500EA

AF:

0.00

AC:

ExAC

AF:

0.000354

AC:

ClinVar

Significance: Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity

Submissions summary: Uncertain:5Benign:3

Revision: criteria provided, conflicting classifications

LINK: link

Submissions by phenotype

not provided

Uncertain:3

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Sinai Health System

Significance:Uncertain significance

Review Status:no assertion criteria provided

Collection Method:clinical testing

The DNAH5 p.Gly2668Arg variant was not identified in the literature nor was it identified in the LOVD 3.0 database. The variant was identified in dbSNP (ID: rs147236883), Cosmic and ClinVar (classified as a VUS for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia by Illumina in 2016, as a VUS by EGL Genetic Diagnostics in 2016, and as likely benign for Ciliary Dyskinesia by Invitae in 2017). The variant was also identified in control databases in 115 of 282222 chromosomes at a frequency of 0.000407 increasing the likelihood this could be a low frequency benign variant (Genome Aggregation Database Feb 27, 2017). The variant was observed in the following populations: African in 110 of 24954 chromosomes (freq: 0.004408), Latino in 4 of 35422 chromosomes (freq: 0.000113) and European (non-Finnish) in 1 of 128626 chromosomes (freq: 0.000008); it was not observed in the Ashkenazi Jewish, East Asian, European (Finnish), Other or South Asian populations. The p.Gly2668 residue is conserved across mammals and other organisms, and computational analyses (PolyPhen-2, SIFT, AlignGVGD, BLOSUM, MutationTaster) suggest that the variant may impact the protein; however, this information is not predictive enough to assume pathogenicity. The variant occurs outside of the splicing consensus sequence and in silico or computational prediction software programs (SpliceSiteFinder, MaxEntScan, NNSPLICE, GeneSplicer) do not predict a difference in splicing. In summary, based on the above information the clinical significance of this variant cannot be determined with certainty at this time. This variant is classified as a variant of uncertain significance. -

Nov 09, 2016

Eurofins Ntd Llc (ga)

Significance:Uncertain significance

Review Status:criteria provided, single submitter

Collection Method:clinical testing

- -

Sep 16, 2024

GeneDx

Significance:Uncertain significance

Review Status:criteria provided, single submitter

Collection Method:clinical testing

In silico analysis supports that this missense variant has a deleterious effect on protein structure/function; Has not been previously published as pathogenic or benign to our knowledge -

Primary ciliary dyskinesia

Uncertain:1Benign:2

Mar 13, 2017

Ambry Genetics

Significance:Benign

Review Status:criteria provided, single submitter

Collection Method:clinical testing

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. -

Jan 18, 2025

Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp

Significance:Likely benign

Review Status:criteria provided, single submitter

Collection Method:clinical testing

- -

Nov 11, 2019

Natera, Inc.

Significance:Uncertain significance

Review Status:no assertion criteria provided

Collection Method:clinical testing

- -

Primary ciliary dyskinesia 3

Uncertain:1

Jan 12, 2018

Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina

Significance:Uncertain significance

Review Status:criteria provided, single submitter

Collection Method:clinical testing

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, this variant could not be ruled out of causing disease and therefore its association with disease required further investigation. A literature search was performed for the gene, cDNA change, and amino acid change (if applicable). No publications were found based on this search. This variant was therefore classified as a variant of unknown significance for this disease. -

DNAH5-related disorder

Benign:1

May 01, 2023

PreventionGenetics, part of Exact Sciences

Significance:Likely benign

Review Status:no assertion criteria provided

Collection Method:clinical testing

This variant is classified as likely benign based on ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation guidelines (Richards et al. 2015 PMID: 25741868, with internal and published modifications). -

Computational scores

Source: dbNSFP v4.3

Name

Calibrated prediction

Score

Prediction

AlphaMissense

Pathogenic

0.85

BayesDel_addAF

Benign

0.011

BayesDel_noAF

Pathogenic

0.24

CADD

Uncertain

(source)

DANN

Pathogenic

1.0

DEOGEN2

Uncertain

0.64

Eigen

Pathogenic

1.1

Eigen_PC

Pathogenic

1.0

FATHMM_MKL

Pathogenic

0.98

LIST_S2

Pathogenic

1.0

M_CAP

Uncertain

0.10

MetaRNN

Benign

0.11

MetaSVM

Uncertain

0.64

MutationAssessor

Pathogenic

4.9

PhyloP100

7.7

PrimateAI

Pathogenic

0.81

PROVEAN

Pathogenic

-7.7

REVEL

Pathogenic

0.65

Sift

Pathogenic

0.0

Polyphen

1.0

Vest4

0.97

MutPred

0.74

Gain of catalytic residue at G2668 (P = 0.087);

MVP

0.88

MPC

0.53

ClinPred

0.34

GERP RS

5.9

Varity_R

0.95

gMVP

0.85

Mutation Taster

=19/81

disease causing

(source)

Splicing

Name

Calibrated prediction

Score

Prediction

SpliceAI score (max)

0.0

Details are displayed if max score is > 0.2

Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at spliceailookup.broadinstitute.org

Publications

You must be logged in to view publications. This limit was set because tens of millions (!) of queries from AI bots are generated daily.

Variant summary

Frequency

Consequence

Scores

Clinical Significance

Conservation

Publications

ACMG classification

Transcripts

RefSeq

Ensembl

Frequencies

Age Distribution

Age Distribution

ClinVar

Submissions by phenotype

Computational scores

Splicing

Publications

Other links and lift over