rs1801243
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -20 ACMG points: 0P and 20B. BP4_StrongBP6_Very_StrongBA1
The NM_000053.4(ATP7B):āc.1216T>Gā(p.Ser406Ala) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.471 in 1,614,028 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 184,066 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 14/20 in silico tools predict a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Likely benign (ā ā ).
Frequency
Consequence
NM_000053.4 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATP7B | NM_000053.4 | c.1216T>G | p.Ser406Ala | missense_variant | 2/21 | ENST00000242839.10 | NP_000044.2 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Protein | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ATP7B | ENST00000242839.10 | c.1216T>G | p.Ser406Ala | missense_variant | 2/21 | 1 | NM_000053.4 | ENSP00000242839 | P1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes AF: 0.401 AC: 60992AN: 152042Hom.: 13529 Cov.: 33
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.445 AC: 111028AN: 249516Hom.: 25851 AF XY: 0.446 AC XY: 60391AN XY: 135366
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.478 AC: 698979AN: 1461868Hom.: 170543 Cov.: 73 AF XY: 0.476 AC XY: 345879AN XY: 727236
GnomAD4 genome AF: 0.401 AC: 60988AN: 152160Hom.: 13523 Cov.: 33 AF XY: 0.404 AC XY: 30026AN XY: 74388
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not specified Benign:9
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Genome Diagnostics Laboratory, Amsterdam University Medical Center | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | PreventionGenetics, part of Exact Sciences | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Jan 08, 2016 | This variant is considered likely benign or benign based on one or more of the following criteria: it is a conservative change, it occurs at a poorly conserved position in the protein, it is predicted to be benign by multiple in silico algorithms, and/or has population frequency not consistent with disease. - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genetic Services Laboratory, University of Chicago | Feb 08, 2013 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Eurofins Ntd Llc (ga) | Apr 27, 2016 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Genome Diagnostics Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center | - | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Joint Genome Diagnostic Labs from Nijmegen and Maastricht, Radboudumc and MUMC+ | - | - - |
Wilson disease Benign:9
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Women's Health and Genetics/Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp | Aug 18, 2011 | - - |
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, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Natera, Inc. | Sep 16, 2020 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Labcorp Genetics (formerly Invitae), Labcorp | Feb 01, 2024 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Genome-Nilou Lab | Jul 01, 2021 | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Color Diagnostics, LLC DBA Color Health | Mar 05, 2018 | - - |
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | All of Us Research Program, National Institutes of Health | Feb 05, 2024 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories | Nov 29, 2023 | - - |
not provided Uncertain:1Benign:1
Uncertain significance, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Sinai Health System | - | multiple AR variants in same gene - keep for nowAllele frequency is common in at least one population database (frequency: 54.463% in ExAC) based on the frequency threshold of 2.434% for this gene.Variant was observed in a homozygous state in population databases more than expected for disease. - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | not provided | Breakthrough Genomics, Breakthrough Genomics | - | - - |
Inborn genetic diseases Benign:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Ambry Genetics | Jul 01, 2016 | 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. - |
Computational scores
Source:
Splicing
Find out detailed SpliceAI scores and Pangolin per-transcript scores at