Description
Variant summary: MLH1 c.306G>T (p.Glu102Asp) results in a conservative amino acid change located in the N-terminal domain (IPR002099) of the encoded protein sequence. Four of five in-silico tools predict a damaging effect of the variant on protein function. The variant is located at the last nucleotide of exon 3, therefore can affect splicing. Several computational tools predict a significant impact on normal splicing: three predict the variant weakens a 5' donor site, while three predict the variant weakens/abolishes a cryptic 5' donor site, which is located 5 nucleotides upstream from the canonical splice site. One observation from a patient carrying c.303T>G and c.306G>T in trans showed that allele c.306G>T did not produce any wild-type splice product, strongly suggesting for a pathogenic outcome by defective splicing (poster from Myriad Genetics, 2015 ASHG meeting). A different variant affecting the same nucleotide (i.e. a G>C change) was found to cause a splicing defect (Borras_2012). The variant allele was found at a frequency of 1.2e-05 in 251464 control chromosomes (gnomAD). c.306G>T has been reported in the literature in several individuals affected with Lynch Syndrome associated tumors (e.g. Chao_2008, Kovac_2011, Susswein_2016, Whitworth_2016, Sethi_2016, Kim_2020, Nagabhushana_2021), and in multiple cases loss of MLH1 and PMS2 expression and / or high microsatellite instability was described in the associated tumor, although in a few cases retained MMR protein expression was also noted. These data indicate that the variant is likely to be associated with disease. An in vitro study, examining the protein level effects of this missense change demonstrated that the variant resulted in retained protein expression (>75% of wild-type) with a somewhat reduced MMR activity (<60% of wild-type; Takahashi_2007), however, authors used an intronless cDNA sequence for mutagenesis, and in light of the (potential) spliceogenic effect, these findings might not reflect the overall in vivo consequences of the variant. Eight submitters, including an expert panel (InSiGHT), have provided clinical-significance assessments for this variant in ClinVar after 2014, and classified the variant as pathogenic (n=4) / likely pathogenic (n=3), while the expert panel called the variant as VUS (n=1). Based on the evidence outlined above, the variant was classified as pathogenic.
# | Sample | Method | Observation |
---|
Origin | Affected | Number tested | Tissue | Purpose | Method | Individuals | Allele frequency | Families | Co-occurrences |
---|
1 | germline | unknown | not provided | not provided | not provided | | not provided | not provided | not provided | not provided |