Results. TRAPS-associated mutant and wild-type TNFRSF1A behaved differently and had different localization properties within the cell, as a direct result of mutations in the ectodomains of TNFRSF1A. From a structural perspective, mutants with a predicted structure similar to that of the wild-type protein (e.g., R92Q) behaved similarly to wild-type TNFRSF1A, whereas forms of TNFRSF1A with mutations predicted to drastically destabilize the protein structure (e.g., cysteine mutations) showed defects in cell surface expression and TNF binding.Conclusion. The results obtained from the in vitro experiments, in combination with the modeled structures, indicate that the phenotype and clinical differences between different TRAPS-associated mutants of TNFRSF1A result from different conformations of the TNFRSF1A ectodomains.