Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0234246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234246

Table 2. Classification of de novo variants using in silico prediction programs.

Ext-Code Variant HGNC MutCDNA gnomAD (MAF) SIFT LRT Mutation Taster Mutation Assessor FATHMM PROVEAN Meta SVM Meta LR Fathmm MKL_coding CADD Score
4_501 1 EEF1D c.874C>T - N A - - - - - N 28,5
2 CELSR1 c.4357G>A 3/282,594 (0.00001) T U N N T N T T D 15,3
21_501 3 HPS3 c.1189C>T 10/282,776 (0.00004) D D A M T D D T D 35
27_501 4 PIGC c.716C>T T D D M T N T T D 11,6
35_501 5 NFX1 c.1723G>A D N N L T N T T D 20,8
36_501 6 ZFHX3 c.1601C>G D N D L T N T T D 22,3
41_501 7 MTA3 c.393C>A 1/237,600 (0.000004) D D D H D D D D D 26
46_501 8 FANCB c.782G>A T N N N T N T T N 7,2
9 PLEC c.6704G>A 17/272,690 (0.00006) D U D N T N T T D 26,5
63_501 10 PPIP5K2 c.686G>A 2/247,732 (0.000008) D D D M T D T T D 34
88_501 11 CLP1 c.814C>A 1/251,486 (0.000003) T D D L T N T T D 17,4
12 GPR133 c.1033G>A 6/282,534 (0.00002) T N N N T N T T N 0,016
13 SLC5A2 c.644T>C D D D H D D D D D 27,6
90_501 14 KIAA0556 c.3730C>T D N N L T N T T N 1,9
141_501 15 STAB1 c.6145C>T 9/278,948 (0.00003) T N N M T D T T N 24,1
154_501 16 GGT6 c.1045A>G D N N N T D T T N 5,9
167_501 17 CHD7 c.4187C>G D D D H T D D D D 33
172_501 18 NPR2 c.952C>G T N D L D D T T D 22,2
174_501 19 UBA3 c.1088C>T D D D L T D T T D 27,8
181_501 20 TANC2 c.2357C>T T D D L T D T T D 22,7
288_501 21 TRPS1 c.1630C>T - D A - - - - - D 36
22 APOL2 c.319G>C T N N N T N T T N 0,004
750_501* 23 ZFHX3 c.6377C>T 5/250,880 (0.00002) D D D L T D D D D 19,2

*A: automatic disease causing; D: disease causing; H: high functional; L: non-functional; M: medium functional; N: neutral; T: tolerant. Annotations marked in bold red represent: “variants that are classified to be disease causing by at least eight out of ten in silico prediction programs (except for truncating variants) used by dbNSFP v3.0 (https://sites.google.com/site/jpopgen/dbNSFP)”.