FIGURE 4.

(A and B) Examples of in silico splicing prediction of TET2 canonical splice donor variants of (A) c.3954+1G>A, and (B) c.3954+2T>A substitutions. Four splicing predictors were used; the impact on gene splicing is indicated with vertical blue bars. The predicted strength of canonical splice donor signals at the splicing junctions is reduced in both variants compared to the wild‐type reference transcript. The gains of splicing signals were observed at the same internal cryptic splice donor site as shown in Figure 1.