CDRT15L2

Chr 17

CMT1A duplicated region transcript 15 like 2

NCBI Gene: 256223 ENSG00000214819 UniProt: A8MXV6

Predicted to be located in membrane. [provided by Alliance of Genome Resources, Jul 2025]

Active trials

Pathogenic / LP

ClinVar variants

Pubs (1 yr)

0.2

Missense Z

1.82

LOEUF

Clinical Summary— CDRT15L2

⚡

Population Constraint (gnomAD)

Low constraint (pLI 0.00) — loss-of-function variants are relatively tolerated in the population.

📋

ClinVar Variants

17 Pathogenic / Likely Pathogenic· 60 VUS of 82 total submissions

Population Genetics & Constraint

gnomAD v4 — loss-of-function & missense intolerance

gnomAD

Tolerant — LoF & missense variants common in population

LoF Constraint?LOEUF (Loss-of-function Observed/Expected Upper bound Fraction) is the upper bound of the 90% CI for LoF OE — the preferred gnomAD v4 metric. Lower = more intolerant to LoF. LOEUF < 0.35 = highly constrained.

1.82LOEUF

pLI 0.002

Z-score 0.07

OE 0.96 (0.46–1.82)

Tolerant

Highly tolerant — LoF variants common in population

Missense Constraint?Missense Z-score: standard deviations fewer missense variants observed vs. expected. Z > 3.09 (p < 0.001) = gene does not tolerate missense variation. OE missense < 0.6 is also considered constrained.

0.15Z-score

OE missense 0.96 (0.83–1.11)

129 obs / 134.0 exp

Tolerant

Mild missense constraint

Observed / Expected Ratios?Shaded band = 90% confidence interval. Vertical tick = point estimate. Grey threshold line = gnomAD constraint cutoff for that variant class.

LoF OE?Ratio of observed to expected LoF variants. Upper CI bound (LOEUF) ≤ 0.35 = strong LoF constraint signal.0.96 (0.46–1.82)

0≤0.351.4

Missense OE?Ratio of observed to expected missense variants. OE ≤ 0.6 = fewer missense variants than expected by chance.0.96 (0.83–1.11)

0≤0.61.4

Synonymous OE?Control metric — synonymous variants are largely neutral and expected near OE = 1.0. Significant deviation may indicate annotation issues.1.12

0≤1.21.6

LoF obs/exp: 4 / 4.1Missense obs/exp: 129 / 134.0Syn Z: -0.71

0.77top 25%

GOF

0.73top 25%

LOF

0.2288th %ile

This gene has evidence for multiple mechanisms of pathogenicity (dominant-negative and gain-of-function). Both the Badonyi & Marsh prediction and the broader genomic evidence point to dominant-negative as the predominant mechanism. Different variants in this gene may act through different mechanisms — interpret in context of the specific variant.

DNprediction above median

GOFprediction above median

Note: In-silico variant effect predictors (SIFT, PolyPhen, REVEL, CADD) may underestimate pathogenicity of missense variants in genes with GOF or DN mechanisms. Consider functional evidence and clinical context.

Predictions from Badonyi M, Marsh JA. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(8):e0307312.