rs1553545883
Variant summary
Our verdict is Likely pathogenic. Variant got 8 ACMG points: 8P and 0B. PM1PM2PP3_Strong
The NM_003742.4(ABCB11):āc.3326T>Cā(p.Leu1109Pro) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.000000685 in 1,459,040 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, with no homozygous occurrence. In-silico tool predicts a pathogenic outcome for this variant. 12/21 in silico tools predict a damaging outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Uncertain significance (ā ).
Frequency
Consequence
NM_003742.4 missense
Scores
Clinical Significance
Conservation
Genome browser will be placed here
ACMG classification
Verdict is Likely_pathogenic. Variant got 8 ACMG points.
Transcripts
RefSeq
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | MANE | Protein | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABCB11 | NM_003742.4 | c.3326T>C | p.Leu1109Pro | missense_variant | 25/28 | ENST00000650372.1 | NP_003733.2 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ABCB11 | ENST00000650372.1 | c.3326T>C | p.Leu1109Pro | missense_variant | 25/28 | NM_003742.4 | ENSP00000497931.1 | |||
ABCB11 | ENST00000649448.1 | c.1643T>C | p.Leu548Pro | missense_variant | 11/15 | ENSP00000497165.1 | ||||
ABCB11 | ENST00000439188.1 | n.*1796T>C | non_coding_transcript_exon_variant | 12/15 | 2 | ENSP00000416058.1 | ||||
ABCB11 | ENST00000439188.1 | n.*1796T>C | 3_prime_UTR_variant | 12/15 | 2 | ENSP00000416058.1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes Cov.: 32
GnomAD4 exome AF: 6.85e-7 AC: 1AN: 1459040Hom.: 0 Cov.: 31 AF XY: 0.00 AC XY: 0AN XY: 725568
GnomAD4 genome Cov.: 32
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
Benign recurrent intrahepatic cholestasis type 2 Uncertain:1
Uncertain significance, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genomic Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences | Jan 01, 2019 | - - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at