 It was good to go. Oh, good. OK. Well, thanks. Yeah, as Donna alluded to, as I sat and listened to the presentations earlier, I heard a lot of things that were very relevant to what we've been talking about, thinking about with regards to this whole question about data and exporting things out of the UDN and where our opportunities end there. So as was mentioned earlier, I'm not necessarily going to have a lot of answers, so I'm going to probably promote or hone around for the people that present as many questions as I do answers. But so in thinking about these first two questions, they really, to my mind and to the rest of our group as we were discussing this, are fairly similar issues in terms of the fact that how are we going to get synergistic interactions and how are we going to get new people in? I mean, a simple solution is you fund it. In other words, if you fund this, people will be interested and they will be interested in studying these things. Now, there's precedent for this through the UDP and there's, I think, one more round coming up where there's been R21s available for people to study the gene function. I've outlined the different sources of those. But essentially, the idea of encouraging people to study these novel genes that have been identified through the studies of the UDN. But a big question is, well, sure, if you fund it, they'll come, but what do you want to happen? What's the goal of getting new people into study rare diseases and what's the goal of recruiting people, clinicians, and research people to work together? So far, we've heard about research on novel genes and gene networks, which is a good way to export things, the products, if you will, of the UDN. But this is funded by many, most of the institutes at NIH already, so it's not really a novel opportunity for the UDN or for the UDN necessarily to be promoting. And likewise, though it exports the products of the UDN, so these various genes that are identified, it doesn't do anything to address essentially the approach or the model of the UDN and how we try to come up with a diagnosis in these patients. I mean, other opportunities would potentially be to come up with RFAs, more specifically targeting studies of, with an emphasis on pathophysiology, the idea being that really pathophysiology is where you need to be in terms of starting to think about developing therapeutics. So rather than just saying, well, can you study this gene, perhaps come a little more targeted in terms of what kind of studies you wanted to support out of that. And one possibility to facilitate that or to integrate within components of the UDN into that process, the Model Organisms Core as well as Metabolomics Core could be very helpful if outside investigators could apply and get access to utilize some of those resources to bring to bear in their studies of pathophysiology. We heard about the idea of potentially long-term follow-up, studying cohorts of patients. I threw that on there just to make note of that. Again, if we've got an N of one, that's not much of a long-term follow-up cohort. On the other hand, if somebody has a handful of these patients or is interested in a particular pathway, for instance, a signaling pathway and we've identified patients who have problems within there, perhaps that's something that one could target, again, to try to support the mission of the UDN to continue in that direction. Another idea would be thinking, we're gonna have a biorepository and people can apply to get samples out of a biorepository, but what about thinking of the UDN itself as an entity to be studied? So, someone brought up the idea, well, we should do psychological study. See what's the impact on subjects or what's the impact of subjects who are not accepted or people who apply and don't get in. I don't think that's necessarily the purview of the UDN itself. On the other hand, if you can somehow facilitate others who are interested and know how to address those sorts of questions, maybe we could avail ourselves to that, much like the ongoing study from the group at UCLA who's essentially studying our process. And then finally, the third question. So how can the integrating DNA help the UDN model become a community standard of clinical care? There's some tough questions here in terms of thinking about that. A key point is that we really tend to focus on the cause of rare diseases. So we use various data, whereas, if we wanna get this out into the community, into clinical care, we're looking at different targets. Again, the idea of treatment is more oriented towards pathophysiology, what are clinical phenotypes, what are the targets for treatment, and how do we assess the effect of treatments? So at the current state, what we do is not necessarily translatable directly into the clinical arena. So the question is, how can we do that? And should we do that? In other words, should this be a strong focus of the UDN itself? Or in fact, perhaps we should address questions one and two, which was the idea of bringing in new investigators, research, and clinical collaborations. Perhaps this is what we fund, the idea of translating what we're doing into the more general clinical environment, and that our field of dreams, if we build it, if we fund it, they'll come. In terms of this idea of data integration and how we would translate this, we deal with lots of data. Clinical phenotypes, DNA, so we can see metabolomics, and information that's coming out of the Model Organism Core. One thing that we do lack, and that would be, I think, beneficial for all of us, would be improved bioinformatics tools to go beyond what we can currently do is things like the Phenome Central and Gene Matcher, where you've got genes and you've got clinical phenotypes and trying to match these things. This sort of thing doesn't exist nearly as a refined state for things like metabolomic data, microbiome data, and other kinds of omics information. So, and the idea would be that if we could do this and use the UDN system as a means for improving these sorts of tools, those would not only help for diagnostic purposes, but they would actually help for treatment. Again, the idea that you could, for instance, you could predict symptoms better based on genotypes or predict metabolomic phenotype, pardon the metabolotype, I made that one up, on genotype, symptom predictions, et cetera. But again, the idea that data integration really means taking a lot of different, disparate types of data and figuring out how to merge that. So how could the UDN support such things? Well, again, we go back to the beginning where there's been R21s for studies of genes, maybe we have R21s or something, other mechanisms for bioinformatic development. You know, the UDN itself doesn't really have a pot of money to be funding things for. On the other hand, another option would be, again, using the UDN site as a partner. Say, well, we have a lot of data we're generating. You are a bioinformatic development person. Let's work together. You know, you can bring that expertise in here. Another would be actually incorporating within the UDN either a core or more expertise that spans the whole breadth of what's going on in terms of the kind of data that's being collected and the evaluations that are being done within the UDN. Last but not least, and this is another topic that's come up, is if you want to translate the UDN model, it's going to be critical to show that there's a value there. We talked about insurance companies, talked about what's benefit, et cetera. Everyone loves to talk about big data, but I think until you can show that this is going to improve care somehow, be it more efficient, be it quicker, whatever. And I think it's the onus is on us to demonstrate, or come up with these metrics and demonstrate that data integration does improve that.