- Mar 2021
-
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 120.54
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 11.09
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 74.18
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 6.49
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 95.74
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 14.87
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 83.96
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 9.89
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 94.84
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 20.56
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 17.43
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 5.19
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 108.51
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 17.71
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 67.82
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 10.97
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 72.7
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 3
StandardErrorMean: 9.73
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 9.68
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 3.44
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 115.71
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardErrorMean: 3.09
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 80.95
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.01
StandardErrorMean: 0
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file. Discrepancy in “Supplementary Data 1” file: nucleotide reported as c.3191A>G.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 101.02
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 5.45
StandardErrorMean: 3.86
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file. Discrepancy in “Source Data” file: protein reported as T1064C.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 84.43
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.77
StandardErrorMean: 1.96
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file. Discrepancy in “Source Data” file: protein reported as L855P (based on matching values reported in the “Supplementary Data 1” file to values reported in the “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 15.58
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 6
StandardDeviation: 0.52
StandardErrorMean: 0.37
ControlType: Abnormal; empty vector (set 5)
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.93
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 6
StandardDeviation: 0.56
StandardErrorMean: 0.39
ControlType: Abnormal; empty vector (set 4)
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 8.71
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 6
StandardDeviation: 1.75
StandardErrorMean: 1.24
ControlType: Abnormal; empty vector (set 3)
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.11
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 6
StandardDeviation: 2.37
StandardErrorMean: 1.68
ControlType: Abnormal; empty vector (set 2)
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.83
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 6
StandardDeviation: 1.13
StandardErrorMean: 0.8
ControlType: Abnormal; empty vector (set 1)
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 100
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 38
StandardDeviation: 0
StandardErrorMean: 0
ControlType: Normal; wild type PALB2 cDNA
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 97.16
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.32
StandardErrorMean: 0.93
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 30.35
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 3.64
StandardErrorMean: 2.57
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 20.32
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.49
StandardErrorMean: 0.35
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.42
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.87
StandardErrorMean: 2.03
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 91.47
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 8.63
StandardErrorMean: 6.1
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 100.19
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 5.64
StandardErrorMean: 3.99
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 10.53
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.79
StandardErrorMean: 1.97
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 90.64
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.82
StandardErrorMean: 1.29
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 11.37
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.36
StandardErrorMean: 0.26
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 70.86
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 17.18
StandardErrorMean: 12.15
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 81.81
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 7.45
StandardErrorMean: 5.27
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 90.54
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 10.24
StandardErrorMean: 7.24
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 13.45
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.2
StandardErrorMean: 1.55
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 92.2
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 19.94
StandardErrorMean: 14.1
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 90.79
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 6.38
StandardErrorMean: 4.51
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 69.83
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 5.94
StandardErrorMean: 4.2
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 75.85
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 4.78
StandardErrorMean: 3.38
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 94.33
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 9.99
StandardErrorMean: 7.07
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 102.58
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.19
StandardErrorMean: 1.55
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 21.79
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.84
StandardErrorMean: 1.3
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 95.86
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.62
StandardErrorMean: 1.15
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 91.21
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 7.32
StandardErrorMean: 5.18
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 10.59
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.6
StandardErrorMean: 0.43
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 76.97
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 3.1
StandardErrorMean: 2.19
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.92
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.32
StandardErrorMean: 0.94
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 38.85
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 3.05
StandardErrorMean: 2.15
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 16.89
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 3.12
StandardErrorMean: 2.21
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 17.62
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.76
StandardErrorMean: 1.25
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 86.41
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 17.62
StandardErrorMean: 12.46
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 6.16
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.27
StandardErrorMean: 0.9
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 95.16
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 3
StandardDeviation: 16.94
StandardErrorMean: 9.78
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.08
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.54
StandardErrorMean: 0.38
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 14.01
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.53
StandardErrorMean: 0.38
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 74.49
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.29
StandardErrorMean: 1.62
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 6.53
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.29
StandardErrorMean: 0.21
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 30.27
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.04
StandardErrorMean: 0.74
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.63
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.51
StandardErrorMean: 0.36
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 63.4
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 5.92
StandardErrorMean: 4.18
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 60.28
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 3
StandardDeviation: 0.14
StandardErrorMean: 0.1
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 17.35
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 6.21
StandardErrorMean: 4.39
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 106.23
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 14.57
StandardErrorMean: 10.3
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 75.71
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 22.31
StandardErrorMean: 15.77
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 6.66
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.28
StandardErrorMean: 0.2
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 6.1
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.11
StandardErrorMean: 1.49
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 84.07
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.47
StandardErrorMean: 1.75
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 100.07
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 6.18
StandardErrorMean: 4.37
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 91.6
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 8.2
StandardErrorMean: 5.8
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 82.83
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 4.82
StandardErrorMean: 3.41
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 87.35
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 11.94
StandardErrorMean: 8.44
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 83.25
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 5.27
StandardErrorMean: 3.73
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.03
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.68
StandardErrorMean: 1.9
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 77.45
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 6.2
StandardErrorMean: 4.38
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 9.92
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.93
StandardErrorMean: 1.37
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 95.02
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.08
StandardErrorMean: 0.06
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 10.4
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 3.22
StandardErrorMean: 2.28
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.75
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.59
StandardErrorMean: 1.83
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 75.45
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 4.03
StandardErrorMean: 2.85
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 98.55
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 5.74
StandardErrorMean: 4.06
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 62.31
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 11.49
StandardErrorMean: 8.13
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 66.19
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 21.26
StandardErrorMean: 15.03
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 105.41
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 9.45
StandardErrorMean: 6.68
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 7.82
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.31
StandardErrorMean: 1.64
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 92.32
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.26
StandardErrorMean: 1.6
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 44.9
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 9.75
StandardErrorMean: 6.89
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 97.61
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 0.97
StandardErrorMean: 0.68
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 11.28
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 1.24
StandardErrorMean: 0.87
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
Source Data
AssayResult: 86.67
AssayResultAssertion: Not reported
ReplicateCount: 2
StandardDeviation: 2.24
StandardErrorMean: 1.58
Comment: Exact values reported in “Source Data” file.
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3492G>T p.(W1164C)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3191A>G p.(Y1064C)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2574T>C p.(V858=)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.92C>T p.(T31I)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.83A>G p.(Y28C)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.71T>C p.(L24S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.688G>T p.(E230X)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.629C>T p.(P210L)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.53A>G p.(K18R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.514_517delTCTG p.(S172fs)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.400G>A p.(D134N)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3549C>G p.(Y1183X)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3548A>G p.(Y1183C)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3539T>C p.(I1180T)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3520G>A p.(G1174R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3515T>C p.(L1172P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3478T>C p.(S1160P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3476G>T p.(W1159L)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3428T>A p.(L1143H)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3367G>A p.(V1123M)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3356T>C p.(L1119P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3331C>G p.(P1111A)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3209T>C p.(L1070P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3172T>C p.(S1058P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3152T>G p.(I1051S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3128G>A p.(G1043D)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3119T>C p.(L1040S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3113G>A p.(W1038X)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3110T>C p.(I1037T)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3089C>T p.(T1030I)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3073_3074delinsCG p.(A1025R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3054G>T p.(E1018D)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.3026delC p.(P1009Lfs)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2993G>A p.(G998E)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2962C>T p.(Q988X)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2915T>A p.(L972Q)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2897T>C p.(I966T)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2882T>C p.(L961P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2840T>C p.(L947S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2831T>A p.(I944N)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2819A>G p.(E940G)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2816T>G p.(L939W)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2809G>A p.(G937R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2792T>G p.(L931R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2780A>C p.(D927A)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2734T>G p.(W912G)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2642_2645dupGTTG p.(C882Wfs)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2612A>G p.(D871G)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2593T>C p.(S865P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2590C>T p.(P864S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2120C>T p.(P707L)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2117C>T p.(T706I)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2014G>C p.(E672Q)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.2006delA p.(E669Gfs)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1865T>C p.(L622P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.172_175delTTGT p.(Q60Rfs)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1676A>G p.(Q559R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1653T>A p.(Y551X)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1592delT p.(L531Cfs)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1544A>G p.(K515R)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1492G>T p.(D498Y)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.13C>T p.(P5S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1250C>A p.(S417Y)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.124G>A p.(E42K)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1227_1231delTGTTA p.(Y409X)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1222T>C p.(Y408H)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.110G>A p.(R37H)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.10C>T p.(P4S)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.104T>C p.(L35P)
-
We, therefore, analyzed the effect of 48 PALB2 VUS (Fig. 2a, blue) and one synthetic missense variant (p.A1025R) (Fig. 2a, purple)29 on PALB2 function in HR.
HGVS: NM_024675.3:c.1010T>C p.(L337S)
Tags
- CAID:CA251717
- Variant:17
- Variant:2
- ClinVarID:1246
- ClinVarID:460996
- Variant:10
- CAID:CA163908
- ClinVarID:216752
- Variant:67
- Variant:60
- CAID:CA164468
- ValidationControl:Pathogenic
- CAID:CA279524947
- CAID:CA395139401
- ClinVarID:567901
- ClinVarID:126747
- ClinVarID:126600
- ClinVarID:484164
- Variant:53
- ClinVarID:182786
- Variant:52
- ValidationControl:Benign
- ClinVarID:461007
- Variant:42
- Variant:8
- FuncAssay:1
- ClinVarID:142468
- CAID:CA16620118
- CAID:CA269625
- CAID:CA151229
- CAID:CA395145110
- ClinVarID:922719
- CAID:CA269551
- Variant:56
- ClinVarID:126582
- AssayControl:Abnormal
- ClinVarID:187262
- Variant:62
- CAID:CA161315
- ClinVarID:126607
- ClinVarID:142079
- CAID:CA395137985
- CAID:CA279530867
- CAID:CA10579985
- ClinVarID:126609
- CAID:CA251004
- ClinVarID:126670
- Variant:44
- AssayControl:Normal
- Variant:7
- ClinVarID:186824
- Variant:28
- ClinVarID:182741
- CAID:CA151212
- Variant:49
- CAID:CA151242
- Variant:39
- CAID:CA196017
- Variant:40
- Variant:68
- FuncAssay:2
- CAID:CA10580054
- Variant:21
- ValidationControl:WildType
- CAID:CA395144208
- Variant:51
- CAID:CA151230
- CAID:CA288398
- CAID:CA10579934
- CAID:CA299747
- Variant:41
- ClinVarID:126669
- CAID:CA7963653
- Variant:37
- ClinVarID:182773
- ClinVarID:546043
- CAID:CA279502031
- CAID:CA288386
- Variant:12
- ClinVarID:1243
- ClinVarID:230588
- ClinVarID:126590
- Variant:14
- Variant:43
- ClinVarID:126749
- CAID:CA299663
- Variant:22
- CAID:CA299784
- Variant:23
- Variant:64
- CAID:CA395125757
- CAID:CA288478
- CAID:CA923726356
- CAID:CA195974
- Variant:19
- Variant:66
- Variant:50
- CAID:CA395139673
- Variant:6
- ClinVarID:182790
- CAID:CA395142764
- Variant:61
- CAID:CA151222
- CAID:CA395137855
- ClinVarID:126711
- Variant:16
- Variant:26
- CAID:CA395141313
- ClinVarID:126758
- CAID:CA7963465
- Variant:5
- Variant:13
- ClinVarID:126706
- ClinVarID:126699
- ClinVarID:186840
- ClinVarID:530038
- ClinVarID:134994
- CAID:CA161342
- Variant:48
- CAID:CA269492
- Variant:35
- ClinVarID:126594
- CAID:CA151250
- ClinVarID:229718
- Variant:38
- ClinVarID:657328
- Variant:47
- CAID:CA197176
- CAID:CA658658444
- CG:BulkAnnotation
- ClinVarID:219647
- ClinVarID:186939
- Variant:3
- ClinVarID:232977
- ClinVarID:126595
- Variant:11
- CAID:CA163622
- CAID:CA395122261
- Variant:24
- CAID:CA395141474
- CAID:CA192169
- CGType:Variant
- Variant:32
- CAID:CA395137656
- ClinVarID:484186
- Variant:20
- ClinVarID:126774
- CAID:CA167348
- CAID:CA494163316
- CAID:CA250432
- ClinVarID:128136
- Variant:46
- Variant:54
- Variant:30
- Variant:29
- CAID:CA151239
- Variant:34
- ClinVarID:484219
- Variant:33
- CAID:CA395121845
- Variant:69
- CAID:CA16621924
- Variant:63
- CGType:FunctionalAssayResult
- ClinVarID:185518
- Variant:36
- Variant:18
- ClinVarID:126738
- ClinVarID:126683
- CAID:CA395141224
- ClinVarID:126623
- CAID:CA210470
- CAID:CA161327
- CAID:CA269654
- ClinVarID:126613
- Variant:59
- CAID:CA294562
- CAID:CA185966
- Variant:4
- Variant:9
- CAID:CA294407
- Variant:15
- Variant:25
- ClinVarID:126630
- ClinVarID:126761
- CAID:CA350039
- CAID:CA395144928
- Variant:70
- Variant:31
- Variant:57
- CAID:CA196291
- Variant:27
- CAID:CA161333
- CAID:CA395144862
- Variant:45
- ClinVarID:420826
- Variant:1
- ClinVarID:241553
- Variant:65
- CAID:CA151233
- CAID:CA331796
- Variant:58
- Variant:55
- ClinVarID:126740
- CAID:CA339433
- ClinVarID:1245
Annotators
URL
-
-
www.cell.com www.cell.com
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 100
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 471
StandardErrorMean: 3.7
ControlType: Normal; wild type
Comment: This variant (wildtype) had normal function. All other variant parameters were normalized to the values of wildtype. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 59.3
AssayResultAssertion: Indeterminate
ReplicateCount: 30
StandardErrorMean: 8.3
Comment: This variant had mild loss of function (peak current >50% and <75% of wildtype), therefore it was considered inconclusive and neither abnormal nor normal in vitro function. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 28.4
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 13
StandardErrorMean: 8.6
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 45.3
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 31
StandardErrorMean: 5.1
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1).
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 37.2
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 26
StandardErrorMean: 3.8
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 23.1
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 33
StandardErrorMean: 3.2
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 89.5
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 29
StandardErrorMean: 14.6
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 0.9
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 18
StandardErrorMean: 0.5
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 5.4
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 19
StandardErrorMean: 1.5
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 14.8
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 27
StandardErrorMean: 2.5
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 78.9
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 38
StandardErrorMean: 7.2
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 43.3
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 14
StandardErrorMean: 12.2
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 59.7
AssayResultAssertion: Indeterminate
ReplicateCount: 41
StandardErrorMean: 6.3
Comment: This variant had mild loss of function (peak current >50% and <75% of wildtype), therefore it was considered inconclusive and neither abnormal nor normal in vitro function. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 10.2
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 12
StandardErrorMean: 3.4
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 0.3
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 24
StandardErrorMean: 0.3
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 0
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 11
StandardErrorMean: 0
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 3
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 16
StandardErrorMean: 1.5
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 32.6
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 10
StandardErrorMean: 6.2
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 36
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 14
StandardErrorMean: 6
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 13.9
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 15
StandardErrorMean: 2.8
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 3.5
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 29
StandardErrorMean: 0.8
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 0.2
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 25
StandardErrorMean: 0.2
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 102.6
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 31
StandardErrorMean: 16.5
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 1.6
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 15
StandardErrorMean: 0.7
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 12
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 10
StandardErrorMean: 2.2
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 102.4
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 39
StandardErrorMean: 15.5
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 47
AssayResultAssertion: Indeterminate
ReplicateCount: 10
StandardErrorMean: 15.5
Comment: This variant had a mix of multiple abnormalities: a partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype) and a gain of function >10mV shift in activation voltage. Therefore it was considered to have inconclusive in vitro properties (neither normal nor abnormal in vitro function). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 114.7
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 42
StandardErrorMean: 15.2
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 36
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 19
StandardErrorMean: 5.9
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 121.4
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 34
StandardErrorMean: 13.2
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 1.1
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 27
StandardErrorMean: 0.8
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 29.8
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 13
StandardErrorMean: 5.7
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 3.2
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 16
StandardErrorMean: 0.5
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 0.8
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 23
StandardErrorMean: 0.6
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 0
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 43
StandardErrorMean: 0
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 16
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 26
StandardErrorMean: 2.3
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 2.9
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 20
StandardErrorMean: 2.1
Comment: This variant had loss of function of peak current (<10% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 117.2
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 36
StandardErrorMean: 11.7
Comment: This variant had normal peak current and increased late current (>1% of peak), therefore it was considered a GOF variant (in vitro features consistent with Long QT Syndrome Type 3). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 21
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 12
StandardErrorMean: 5.1
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype), therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 38.9
AssayResultAssertion: Abnormal
ReplicateCount: 27
StandardErrorMean: 7.2
Comment: This variant had partial loss of function of peak current (10-50% of wildtype) and a >10mV loss of function shift in Vhalf activation, therefore it was considered abnormal (in vitro features consistent with Brugada Syndrome Type 1). (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 120.5
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 41
StandardErrorMean: 10.5
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 105.3
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 41
StandardErrorMean: 10.8
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
-
Most Suspected Brugada Syndrome Variants Had (Partial) Loss of Function
AssayResult: 77.5
AssayResultAssertion: Normal
ReplicateCount: 30
StandardErrorMean: 8.6
Comment: This variant had normal function (75-125% of wildtype peak current, <1% late current, no large perturbations to other parameters). These in vitro features are consistent with non-disease causing variants. (Personal communication: A. Glazer)
Tags
- ClinVarID:67820
- CAID:CA016428
- ClinVarID:67737
- ClinVarID:67951
- CAID:CA016182
- Variant:19
- ClinVarID:9399
- Variant:17
- Variant:66
- Variant:50
- Variant:61
- CAID:CA017946
- ClinVarID:67732
- ClinVarID:67884
- ClinVarID:67918
- Variant:67
- Variant:60
- Variant:26
- CAID:CA060381
- ClinVarID:67727
- CAID:CA352139743
- CAID:CA017913
- ClinVarID:67756
- Variant:53
- Variant:52
- CAID:CA352142022
- FuncAssay:1
- CAID:CA018516
- ClinVarID:201546
- Variant:35
- ClinVarID:67920
- ClinVarID:67852
- CAID:CA018904
- ClinVarID:201523
- Variant:38
- CAID:CA017796
- Variant:56
- Variant:47
- CAID:CA016482
- ClinVarID:67747
- CG:BulkAnnotation
- Variant:62
- ClinVarID:67952
- Variant:77
- ClinVarID:518750
- ClinVarID:67873
- ClinVarID:67867
- CAID:CA017557
- Variant:32
- ClinVarID:48294
- Variant:20
- AssayControl:Normal
- Variant:46
- Variant:28
- ClinVarID:67876
- CAID:CA016228
- Variant:54
- Variant:30
- Variant:33
- CAID:CA352145324
- Variant:69
- Variant:39
- ClinVarID:67960
- CGType:FunctionalAssayResult
- CAID:CA017955
- ClinVarID:67810
- Variant:18
- CAID:CA018863
- CAID:CA352141945
- Variant:68
- ClinVarID:67857
- CAID:CA018747
- CAID:CA018812
- CAID:CA018503
- CAID:CA016274
- CAID:CA352143498
- ValidationControl:WildType
- Variant:71
- Variant:21
- Variant:51
- ClinVarID:67752
- CAID:CA017969
- ClinVarID:67742
- CAID:CA018943
- Variant:59
- CAID:CA352146767
- Variant:41
- CAID:CA016384
- ClinVarID:67854
- CAID:CA017513
- ClinVarID:67866
- CAID:CA017837
- CAID:CA018079
- CAID:CA018848
- CAID:CA064645
- Variant:25
- CAID:CA018042
- Variant:70
- Variant:57
- CAID:CA017808
- CAID:CA016076
- Variant:27
- CAID:CA016490
- ClinVarID:67940
- Variant:45
- CAID:CA016059
- CAID:CA018163
- ClinVarID:67830
- CAID:CA352143353
- CAID:CA018048
- Variant:76
- CAID:CA017399
- ClinVarID:628262
- ClinVarID:67957
- ClinVarID:67757
- CAID:CA017472
- ClinVarID:67874
- Variant:43
- CAID:CA019516
- Variant:55
- Variant:22
- ClinVarID:67869
- Variant:64
- ClinVarID:67864
Annotators
URL
-