rs7908490
Variant summary
Our verdict is Benign. Variant got -20 ACMG points: 0P and 20B. BP4_StrongBP6_Very_StrongBA1
The NM_001134363.3(RBM20):c.517C>A(p.Pro173Thr) variant causes a missense change involving the alteration of a non-conserved nucleotide. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.00424 in 1,551,686 control chromosomes in the GnomAD database, including 236 homozygotes. In-silico tool predicts a benign outcome for this variant. 13/17 in silico tools predict a benign outcome for this variant. Variant has been reported in ClinVar as Likely benign (★★). Another variant affecting the same amino acid position, but resulting in a different missense (i.e. P173S) has been classified as Uncertain significance.
Frequency
Consequence
NM_001134363.3 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 | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RBM20 | NM_001134363.3 | c.517C>A | p.Pro173Thr | missense_variant | 2/14 | ENST00000369519.4 | |
RBM20 | XM_017016103.3 | c.352C>A | p.Pro118Thr | missense_variant | 2/14 | ||
RBM20 | XM_017016104.3 | c.133C>A | p.Pro45Thr | missense_variant | 2/14 | ||
RBM20 | XM_047425116.1 | c.133C>A | p.Pro45Thr | missense_variant | 2/14 |
Ensembl
Gene | Transcript | HGVSc | HGVSp | Effect | #exon/exons | TSL | MANE | Appris | UniProt |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RBM20 | ENST00000369519.4 | c.517C>A | p.Pro173Thr | missense_variant | 2/14 | 1 | NM_001134363.3 | P1 |
Frequencies
GnomAD3 genomes ? AF: 0.0223 AC: 3399AN: 152118Hom.: 124 Cov.: 32
GnomAD3 exomes AF: 0.00504 AC: 789AN: 156518Hom.: 24 AF XY: 0.00379 AC XY: 314AN XY: 82938
GnomAD4 exome AF: 0.00227 AC: 3179AN: 1399450Hom.: 112 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.00195 AC XY: 1345AN XY: 690236
GnomAD4 genome ? AF: 0.0224 AC: 3403AN: 152236Hom.: 124 Cov.: 32 AF XY: 0.0210 AC XY: 1566AN XY: 74428
ClinVar
Submissions by phenotype
not specified Benign:7
Benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Joint Genome Diagnostic Labs from Nijmegen and Maastricht, Radboudumc and MUMC+ | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Mass General Brigham Personalized Medicine | Jul 03, 2012 | 7.1% (98/1384) of Afr Amer chrom from ESP - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | GeneDx | Apr 30, 2013 | 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, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Clinical Genetics DNA and cytogenetics Diagnostics Lab, Erasmus MC, Erasmus Medical Center | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Women's Health and Genetics/Laboratory Corporation of America, LabCorp | Sep 03, 2019 | Variant summary: RBM20 c.517C>A (p.Pro173Thr) results in a non-conservative amino acid change in the encoded protein sequence. Four of five in-silico tools predict a benign effect of the variant on protein function. The variant allele was found at a frequency of 0.005 in 156518 control chromosomes in the gnomAD database, including 24 homozygotes. The observed variant frequency is approximately 202 fold of the estimated maximal expected allele frequency for a pathogenic variant in RBM20 causing Cardiomyopathy phenotype (2.5e-05), strongly suggesting that the variant is benign. To our knowledge, no occurrence of c.517C>A in individuals affected with Cardiomyopathy and no experimental evidence demonstrating its impact on protein function have been reported. Four clinical diagnostic laboratories have submitted clinical-significance assessments for this variant to ClinVar after 2014 without evidence for independent evaluation. All laboratories classified the variant as benign/likely benign. Based on the evidence outlined above, the variant was classified as benign. - |
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 | - | - - |
Dilated cardiomyopathy 1DD Benign:4
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Invitae | Jan 31, 2024 | - - |
Likely benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Illumina Laboratory Services, Illumina | Apr 27, 2017 | This variant was observed as part of a predisposition screen in an ostensibly healthy population. A literature search was performed for the gene, cDNA change, and amino acid change (where applicable). No publications were found based on this search. Allele frequency data from public databases allowed determination this variant is unlikely to cause disease. Therefore, this variant is classified as likely benign. - |
Likely benign, no assertion criteria provided | clinical testing | Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen | - | - - |
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | ARUP Laboratories, Molecular Genetics and Genomics, ARUP Laboratories | Oct 16, 2023 | - - |
Cardiomyopathy Benign:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | CHEO Genetics Diagnostic Laboratory, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario | Apr 11, 2016 | - - |
Cardiovascular phenotype Benign:1
Benign, criteria provided, single submitter | clinical testing | Ambry Genetics | Jul 21, 2015 | 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