SKAP1

Chr 17

src kinase associated phosphoprotein 1

Also known as: HEL-S-81p, SCAP1, SKAP55

This gene encodes a T cell adaptor protein, a class of intracellular molecules with modular domains capable of recruiting additional proteins but that exhibit no intrinsic enzymatic activity. The encoded protein contains a unique N-terminal region followed by a PH domain and C-terminal SH3 domain. Along with the adhesion and degranulation-promoting adaptor protein, the encoded protein plays a critical role in inside-out signaling by coupling T-cell antigen receptor stimulation to the activation of integrins. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]

0
Active trials
10
Pathogenic / LP
56
ClinVar variants
3
Pubs (1 yr)
0.8
Missense Z
0.88
LOEUF
Clinical SummarySKAP1
Population Constraint (gnomAD)
Low constraint (pLI 0.00) — loss-of-function variants are relatively tolerated in the population.
📋
ClinVar Variants
10 Pathogenic / Likely Pathogenic· 43 VUS of 56 total submissions

Population Genetics & Constraint

gnomAD v4 — loss-of-function & missense intolerance

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.
0.88LOEUF
pLI 0.000
Z-score 2.04
OE 0.57 (0.380.88)
Tolerant

Typical tolerance to LoF variation

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.
0.79Z-score
OE missense 0.84 (0.740.96)
160 obs / 190.5 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.0.57 (0.380.88)
00.351.4
Missense OE?Ratio of observed to expected missense variants. OE ≤ 0.6 = fewer missense variants than expected by chance.0.84 (0.740.96)
00.61.4
Synonymous OE?Control metric — synonymous variants are largely neutral and expected near OE = 1.0. Significant deviation may indicate annotation issues.0.84
01.21.6
LoF obs/exp: 15 / 26.3Missense obs/exp: 160 / 190.5Syn Z: 1.05
DN
0.6841th %ile
GOF
0.6833th %ile
LOF
0.3261th %ile

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

GOFprediction above median
DNprediction 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.

ClinVar Variant Classifications

56 submitted variants in ClinVar

Classification Summary

Pathogenic8
Likely Pathogenic2
VUS43
Likely Benign3
8
Pathogenic
2
Likely Pathogenic
43
VUS
3
Likely Benign

Curated Variants Distribution

Classified variants from ClinVar · 5 ACMG categories

ClassificationLoFMissense + InframeNon-codingSynonymousTotal
Pathogenic
0
0
8
0
8
Likely Pathogenic
0
0
2
0
2
VUS
0
43
0
0
43
Likely Benign
0
3
0
0
3
Benign
0
0
0
0
0
Total04610056

LoF = frameshift, stop gained/lost, canonical splice · Counts from ClinVar esearch · Updated hourly

View in ClinVar →

Protein Context — Lollipop Plot

SKAP1 · protein map & ClinVar variants

Showing all ClinVar variants across the protein. Search a specific variant to highlight its position.

Clinical Trials

Active and recruiting trials from ClinicalTrials.gov

No active trials found for this gene.

Search ClinicalTrials.gov →
Clinical Literature
Landmark / reviewRecent case evidence