I am looking at this variant: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_ref.cgi?rs=754264214 and it is represented as NM_000309.3:c.-8-11C>T
The gene PPOX (NM_000309.3) has a 5' UTR, of which 8 bases lie in first CDS exon. Usually, upstream variants are denoted by a c.-[number_of_bases][REF]>[ALT], but here I see c.-8-11, which could indicate that the variant is 19 upstream of CDS start, and 11 upstream of CDS_Exon-1.
Is this representation canon/acceptable? Can we insert random pieces of information into standardized nomenclature for supposed clarification?
P.S: Let us ignore the part where an NM identifier is followed by a negative co-ordinate - I am not sure if that's valid, but I see it quite often. The problem of course, is that NM sequences may not always have the REF base at the upstream position - they may only include the sequence from a later position.
A day wiser me has reached a different conclusion: This nomenclature makes sense.
NM_000309.3 (PPOX) is a gene where an entire exon is part of the 5' UTR. Denoting c.-8-11C>T as c.-19C>T would not signify the fact that this is an intronic variant, not a regular upstream variant. By using c.-8-11C>T, the notation tells us that this is a variant located upstream of the start codon, in an intronic region that falls inside of the 5' UTR.
Ah, that makes some sense. I'm again glad that I get to mostly avoid dealing with variant nomenclature :)
Log in to answer this question.
That nomenclature makes absolutely no sense to me, though people seem really good at coming up with the craziest HGVS representations.
But does dbSNP not curate entries? I mean, expecting them to follow the latest in HGVS rules might be problematic, but this?