rs147680216

Positions:

chr2-218890244-G-A

Variant summary

Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -8 ACMG points: 1P and 9B. PP3BP4_StrongBS1_SupportingBS2

The NM_025216.3(WNT10A):c.637G>A(p.Gly213Ser) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.000609 in 1,613,674 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 20 homozygotes. 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 0.00083 ( 2 hom., cov: 32)

Exomes 𝑓: 0.00059 ( 18 hom. )

Consequence

WNT10A
NM_025216.3 missense

Scores

Clinical Significance

Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity criteria provided, conflicting classifications P:4U:4B:4

Conservation

PhyloP100: 9.84

Variant links:

Genes affected

WNT10A (HGNC:13829): (Wnt family member 10A) The WNT gene family consists of structurally related genes which encode secreted signaling proteins. These proteins have been implicated in oncogenesis and in several developmental processes, including regulation of cell fate and patterning during embryogenesis. This gene is a member of the WNT gene family. It is strongly expressed in the cell lines of promyelocytic leukemia and Burkitt's lymphoma. In addition, it and another family member, the WNT6 gene, are strongly coexpressed in colorectal cancer cell lines. The gene overexpression may play key roles in carcinogenesis through activation of the WNT-beta-catenin-TCF signaling pathway. This gene and the WNT6 gene are clustered in the chromosome 2q35 region. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]

WNT10A links:

Genome browser will be placed here

ACMG classification

Classification made for transcript

Verdict is Benign. Variant got -8 ACMG points.

PP3

Multiple lines of computational evidence support a deleterious effect 7: BayesDel_noAF, Cadd, Eigen, MutationAssessor, phyloP100way_vertebrate, PROVEAN, REVEL [when max_spliceai, FATHMM_MKL, MetaRNN, MutationTaster was below the threshold]

BP4

Computational evidence support a benign effect (MetaRNN=0.028582364).

BS1

Variant frequency is greater than expected in population eas. gnomad4 allele frequency = 0.000827 (126/152312) while in subpopulation EAS AF= 0.0235 (122/5184). AF 95% confidence interval is 0.0201. There are 2 homozygotes in gnomad4. There are 71 alleles in male gnomad4 subpopulation. Median coverage is 32. This position pass quality control queck. Existence of Clinvar submissions makes me limit the strength of this signal to Supporting

BS2

High Homozygotes in GnomAd4 at 2 SD gene

Transcripts

RefSeq

Gene	Transcript	HGVSc	HGVSp	Effect	#exon/exons	MANE	Protein
WNT10A	NM_025216.3 linkuse as main transcript	c.637G>A	p.Gly213Ser	missense_variant	3/4	ENST00000258411.8	NP_079492.2
WNT10A	XM_011511929.3 linkuse as main transcript	c.541G>A	p.Gly181Ser	missense_variant	4/5		XP_011510231.1
WNT10A	XM_011511930.2 linkuse as main transcript	c.377-2530G>A		intron_variant			XP_011510232.1

Ensembl

Gene	Transcript	HGVSc	HGVSp	Effect	#exon/exons	TSL	MANE	Protein	Appris	UniProt
WNT10A	ENST00000258411.8 linkuse as main transcript	c.637G>A	p.Gly213Ser	missense_variant	3/4	1	NM_025216.3	ENSP00000258411	P1
WNT10A	ENST00000458582.1 linkuse as main transcript	c.264-2530G>A		intron_variant		3		ENSP00000388812

Frequencies

GnomAD3 genomes

AF:

0.000821

AC:

125

AN:

152194

Hom.:

Cov.:

show subpopulations

Gnomad AFR

AF:

0.0000241

Gnomad AMI

AF:

0.00

Gnomad AMR

AF:

0.000131

Gnomad ASJ

AF:

0.00

Gnomad EAS

AF:

0.0233

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

GnomAD3 exomes

AF:

0.00208

AC:

518

AN:

249130

Hom.:

AF XY:

0.00195

AC XY:

263

AN XY:

135054

show subpopulations

Gnomad AFR exome

AF:

0.0000633

Gnomad AMR exome

AF:

0.0000580

Gnomad ASJ exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad EAS exome

AF:

0.0275

Gnomad SAS exome

AF:

0.000131

Gnomad FIN exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad NFE exome

AF:

0.0000355

Gnomad OTH exome

AF:

0.000658

GnomAD4 exome

AF:

0.000586

AC:

857

AN:

1461362

Hom.:

Cov.:

AF XY:

0.000578

AC XY:

420

AN XY:

727014

show subpopulations

Gnomad4 AFR exome

AF:

0.0000299

Gnomad4 AMR exome

AF:

0.0000224

Gnomad4 ASJ exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad4 EAS exome

AF:

0.0192

Gnomad4 SAS exome

AF:

0.000128

Gnomad4 FIN exome

AF:

0.00

Gnomad4 NFE exome

AF:

0.0000261

Gnomad4 OTH exome

AF:

0.000861

GnomAD4 genome

AF:

0.000827

AC:

126

AN:

152312

Hom.:

Cov.:

AF XY:

0.000953

AC XY:

AN XY:

74476

show subpopulations

Gnomad4 AFR

AF:

0.0000241

Gnomad4 AMR

AF:

0.000131

Gnomad4 ASJ

AF:

0.00

Gnomad4 EAS

AF:

0.0235

Gnomad4 SAS

AF:

0.00

Gnomad4 FIN

AF:

0.00

Gnomad4 NFE

AF:

0.00

Gnomad4 OTH

AF:

0.000473

Alfa

AF:

0.000139

Hom.:

Bravo

AF:

0.00105

ESP6500AA

AF:

0.000227

AC:

ESP6500EA

AF:

0.00

AC:

ExAC

AF:

0.00171

AC:

208

Asia WGS

AF:

0.00346

AC:

AN:

3478

EpiCase

AF:

0.000109

EpiControl

AF:

0.0000593

ClinVar

Significance: Conflicting classifications of pathogenicity

Submissions summary: Pathogenic:4Uncertain:4Benign:4

Revision: criteria provided, conflicting classifications

LINK: link

Submissions by phenotype

Tooth agenesis, selective, 4

Pathogenic:1Uncertain:1Benign:1

Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided	clinical testing	Department of Second Dental Center, Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine	-	- -
Pathogenic, no assertion criteria provided	literature only	OMIM	Feb 01, 2014	- -
Likely 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 likely benign is not then subjected to further curation. The score for this variant resulted in a classification of likely benign for this disease. -

Odonto-onycho-dermal dysplasia

Uncertain:1Benign:1

Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided	clinical testing	Department of Second Dental Center, Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine	-	- -
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. -

Odonto-onycho-dermal dysplasia;C1835492:Tooth agenesis, selective, 4

Uncertain:1Benign:1

Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter	reference population	Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University Medical Center	Mar 18, 2016	- -
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter	clinical testing	Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp	Feb 01, 2024	- -

Tooth agenesis, selective, 2

Pathogenic:1

Pathogenic, criteria provided, single submitter

research

Stomatology Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University

We used whole exome sequencing to compare tooth loss gene loci between two brothers with hypophidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (HED), analyze the difference of tooth loss phenotype, and explore its mechanism. wes showed that an EDA mutation was found in both older and younger brothers (c.878T>G), and the compound heterozygous mutation of WNT10A (c.511C>T and c.637G>A) Found only in the elder brothers. Prediction of secondary and tertiary structures of the WNT10A variants (p. R171C, p.G213S) indicated the impaired function of the molecule. The elder brothers have a more severe tooth loss phenotype than younger brothers. It has been reported that eda c.878T>G mutation caused HED (PMID: 30526585). We believe that EDA is the main pathogenic gene in the two patients, and the compound heterozygous WNT10A missense mutation can aggravate the HED phenotype caused by EDA mutation, resulting in a severe edentulous mandible phenotype in the elder brother. -

not provided

Pathogenic:1

Likely pathogenic, criteria provided, single submitter

clinical testing

GeneDx

Jul 11, 2024

In silico analysis supports that this missense variant has a deleterious effect on protein structure/function; This variant is associated with the following publications: (PMID: 34878701, 33932139, 31103801, 28944914, 31180159, 24312213, 30555066, 24449199, 29367877, 23401279, 24311251, 27657131, 29178643, 25629078, 34426522, 33034246, 24458874, 35537890, LiuH[article]2022, 36071541, 34834569, 34184264, 35546689, 33329022, 24043634, 36143186, 37228816, 37005710, 38163170, 36832485, 38280992) -

WNT10A-related disorder

Pathogenic:1

Likely pathogenic, no assertion criteria provided

clinical testing

PreventionGenetics, part of Exact Sciences

Mar 19, 2024

The WNT10A c.637G>A variant is predicted to result in the amino acid substitution p.Gly213Ser. This variant has been reported in the compound heterozygous state, with another variant in WNT10A (phase unknown), with variants in the EDA gene (phase unknown), and in the heterozygous state in individuals with mild ectodermal dysplasia or tooth agenesis (Patient 14, Plaisancié et al. 2013. PubMed ID: 23401279; Proband 52 and 53, He et al. 2013. PubMed ID: 2431221; Song et al. 2013. PubMed ID: 24043634; Family 1, Kantaputra et al. 2014. PubMed ID: 24311251; Yang et al. 2014. PubMed ID: 25629078; Yuan et al. 2017. PubMed ID: 29178643; Park et al. 2019. PubMed ID: 31103801). Of note, this variant has been reported in patients and in normal control populations (Song et al. 2013. PubMed ID: 24043634). Protein structure analysis predicted that this variant would alter protein structure (He et al. 2013. PubMed ID: 24312213). This variant is reported in 2.8% of alleles in individuals of East Asian descent in gnomAD including 14 homozygous individuals. This variant has conflicting interpretations in ClinVar ranging from likely pathogenic to uncertain significance to likely benign to benign (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/variation/139576/). Taken together, we classify this variant as likely pathogenic. -

Tooth agenesis

Uncertain:1

Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided

literature only

Yale Center for Mendelian Genomics, Yale University

Sep 15, 2014

- -

SchC6pf-Schulz-Passarge syndrome

Benign:1

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. -

Computational scores

Source: dbNSFP v4.3

Name

Calibrated prediction

Score

Prediction

AlphaMissense

Uncertain

0.52

BayesDel_addAF

Uncertain

0.12

BayesDel_noAF

Pathogenic

0.42

CADD

Pathogenic

DANN

Uncertain

1.0

DEOGEN2

Pathogenic

0.87

Eigen

Pathogenic

0.96

Eigen_PC

Pathogenic

0.87

FATHMM_MKL

Pathogenic

1.0

LIST_S2

Pathogenic

0.99

MetaRNN

Benign

0.029

MetaSVM

Uncertain

0.49

MutationAssessor

Pathogenic

3.4

MutationTaster

Benign

1.0

PrimateAI

Uncertain

0.59

PROVEAN

Pathogenic

-5.2

REVEL

Pathogenic

0.91

Sift

Pathogenic

0.0

Sift4G

Uncertain

0.0090

Polyphen

1.0

Vest4

0.99

MVP

0.97

MPC

0.43

ClinPred

0.14

GERP RS

4.5

Varity_R

0.96

gMVP

0.88

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

LitVar

Below is the list of publications found by LitVar. It may be empty.

Variant summary

Frequency

Consequence

Scores

Clinical Significance

Conservation

ACMG classification

Transcripts

RefSeq

Ensembl

Frequencies

ClinVar

Submissions by phenotype

Computational scores

Splicing

Publications

LitVar

Other links and lift over