LYFE Sciences · Project HERA
Variant Interpretation · Classification Report
Variant classification summary
NM_001904.4:c.1149G>T
CTNNB1
· NP_001895.1:p.(Trp383Cys)
· NM_001904.4
GRCh37: chr3:41274899 G>T
·
GRCh38: chr3:41233408 G>T
Gene:
CTNNB1
Transcript:
NM_001904.4
Final call
VUS
PM2 supporting
Variant details
Gene
CTNNB1
Transcript
NM_001904.4
Protein
NP_001895.1:p.(Trp383Cys)
gnomAD AF
ClinVar
OncoKB
Likely Oncogenic
Classification rationale
Interpretation summary
Generated evidence synthesis
1
The CTNNB1 c.1149G>T (p.Trp383Cys) variant has been observed in somatic cancers 12 times in COSMIC and has also been reported in ClinVar, although ClinVar submission-level classification details were not available from the retrieved record.
2
This variant is absent from gnomAD v2.1, gnomAD v4.1, and gnomAD-Canada, placing its observed population frequency at 0, below the 0.1% rarity threshold used for PM2.
3
In a published functional study of CTNNB1 armadillo repeat 5 and 6 substitutions, residue W383 was identified as recurrently mutated in cancer, and substitutions in this region were associated with reduced APC binding and increased downstream beta-catenin signaling, but direct functional testing of p.Trp383Cys was not established from the retrieved evidence.
4
Computational findings are concerning for a missense effect, with REVEL 0.642 and BayesDel 0.287483, while SpliceAI predicts no meaningful splice effect with a maximum delta score of 0.02.
Final determination:
Generic ACMG/AMP 2015 fallback rules do not meet benign, likely benign, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic combination thresholds, so the variant is classified as Variant of Uncertain Significance.
Criteria assessment
ACMG/AMP criteria review
Criteria shown when status is available
All criteria require review: For research and educational purposes only.
| Criterion | Status | Rationale | Evidence used |
|---|---|---|---|
| PVS1 | N/A | This is a missense variant, and it does not fall into the generic PVS1 null-variant categories of nonsense, frameshift, or canonical +/-1,2 splice variants. |
pvs1_variant_assessment
pvs1_generic_framework
pvs1_gene_context
|
| PS1 | Not assessed | No evidence was identified showing that this nucleotide change creates the same amino acid change as a previously established pathogenic variant. |
|
| PS2 | Not assessed | No confirmed de novo occurrence data were identified for this variant. |
|
| PS3 | Not assessed | A published study showed that CTNNB1 substitutions in armadillo repeats 5 and 6 can reduce APC binding and increase downstream signaling, but direct well-established functional testing of p.Trp383Cys was not established from the retrieved evidence. |
PMID:31857074
oncokb
|
| PS4 | Not met | This variant has been observed in somatic cancers and has a ClinVar record, but no germline case-control enrichment or statistically increased prevalence in affected individuals was identified. |
clinvar
|
| PM1 | Not assessed | Residue W383 lies in a recurrently mutated CTNNB1 cancer region, but the available evidence does not establish a germline disease-specific mutational hotspot or critical benign-variation-depleted region suitable for applying PM1 with confidence. |
PMID:31857074
hotspots
|
| PM2 | Met | This variant is absent from gnomAD v2.1, gnomAD v4.1, and gnomAD-Canada, so the observed population frequency is 0 and is below the 0.1% PM2 threshold. |
gnomad_v2
gnomad_v4
gnomad_canada
|
| PM3 | N/A | No recessive context or trans observations relevant to PM3 were identified for this variant. |
|
| PM4 | N/A | This is not a protein length-changing variant, so PM4 does not apply. |
|
| PM5 | N/A | Classic same-residue PM5 logic could not be confirmed safely for this case, and no validated same-residue pathogenic comparator was identified for use. |
pm5_candidates
|
| PM6 | Not assessed | No assumed de novo occurrence data were identified for this variant. |
|
| PP1 | Not assessed | No segregation data were identified for this variant. |
|
| PP2 | Not assessed | No gene-specific evidence framework was available to support applying PP2 for this CTNNB1 missense variant. |
|
| PP3 | Not assessed | Computational results are concerning for a missense effect, with REVEL 0.642 and BayesDel 0.287483, while SpliceAI predicts no significant splice impact with a max delta score of 0.02; however, without a gene-specific computational rule or clearly prespecified threshold for this case, these data were not used alone to apply PP3. |
revel
bayesdel
spliceai
|
| PP4 | Not assessed | No phenotype data were provided to assess whether the clinical presentation is highly specific for a CTNNB1-related disorder. |
|
| PP5 | N/A | PP5 is not applied in current ACMG/AMP interpretation practice. |
|
| BA1 | Not met | This variant is absent from gnomAD v2.1, gnomAD v4.1, and gnomAD-Canada, so the observed population frequency is 0 and is far below the 1% BA1 threshold. |
gnomad_v2
gnomad_v4
gnomad_canada
|
| BS1 | Not met | This variant is absent from gnomAD v2.1, gnomAD v4.1, and gnomAD-Canada, so the observed population frequency is 0 and does not exceed the 0.3% BS1 threshold. |
gnomad_v2
gnomad_v4
gnomad_canada
|
| BS2 | Not assessed | No evidence was identified showing this variant in healthy adult individuals in a context sufficient to apply BS2. |
|
| BS3 | Not met | Available functional literature does not show a normal or benign effect for this variant. |
PMID:31857074
oncokb
|
| BS4 | Not assessed | No data were identified showing lack of segregation with disease. |
|
| BP1 | Not assessed | BP1 was not applied because no gene-specific framework was available to determine whether this CTNNB1 missense change should be treated as a low-prior-probability missense mechanism. |
pvs1_gene_context
|
| BP2 | Not assessed | No phase data with another variant were identified. |
|
| BP3 | N/A | This is not an in-frame insertion/deletion in a repetitive region, so BP3 does not apply. |
|
| BP4 | Not met | Benign computational evidence was not identified. REVEL is 0.642 and BayesDel is 0.287483, which do not support a benign missense interpretation, although SpliceAI predicts no significant splice impact with a max delta score of 0.02. |
revel
bayesdel
spliceai
|
| BP5 | Not assessed | No alternative molecular explanation was identified to support BP5. |
|
| BP6 | N/A | BP6 is not applied in current ACMG/AMP interpretation practice. |
|
| BP7 | N/A | This is a missense variant rather than a synonymous or deep intronic change, so BP7 does not apply. |
spliceai
|
Disclaimer:
The content and results provided by LYFE Sciences are for research and educational purposes only and must not be used as a substitute for professional medical judgment, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making any clinical decisions.