 Thank you. As one of, I'm sure probably a number of enigmatologists in the room and those listening in, I think I certainly appreciate the value of the UDP and UDN. Speaking for clinical geneticists, we were all very excited when Bill announced the formation of the UDP in 2008. And just some thoughts in relation to the questions that were posed, what components of the UDN clinical evaluation are most important. And I think what was brought up earlier about the constraints as clinical geneticists now where we're forced to, you know, bring in a certain number of RVUs and see patients and when I first started in this field, you know, we'd see maybe three new patients a week and we could sit and think about them and now, you know, it's more like at least 12 new patients a week who are all, you know, enigmas and have no diagnosis and we see our patients having gone on diagnostic odysseys and the frustration that they have with that. So clearly the UDP and UDN bringing, you know, these multidisciplinary experts together and the communication I think is extremely valuable. Just having time to sit and go over the deep phenotyping information that's available and to phenotype it, not only the clinical but the cellular level as well, determining what tests are appropriate and best practices to make the most of the evaluations that patients have. There's certainly value in the outcome data. I think one thing, you know, we're always so excited when we come up with a specific diagnosis for a patient but often on the patient side, you know, I've had experience with, you know, parents saying well now what, you know, what's the next step and to really bring together the phenotype and genotype data to, you know, hopefully extend that into, you know, investigating possible treatment options. The modeling cores I think are extremely important and then I think, you know, now that many of us are doing whole exome, whole genome sequencing, it's oftentimes those patients that have negative results where you're, you know, certain that it's a genetic condition but looking beyond that into, you know, epigenetic causes as well as the environmental and other exposures. So how can the clinical evaluation be optimized to ensure that consultants have time to deliberate and improve the diagnostic evaluations and I think, and this may be done more often now but to get, to have results of at least a whole exome prior to seeing the patient may be helpful since it does look like, you know, 50% of those who have a diagnosis that's been obtained through whole exome or whole genome sequencing and then, you know, how much of the evaluations can be done locally prior to a patient coming in. I know there's limitations in that sometimes the quality of like an MRI might be below what others are expecting and then should clinical sites have focused areas of clinical expertise, I think again oftentimes one of the limiting things is the lack of maybe a specialist in one specific area such as a neuroradiologist who's great at reading, you know, brain MRIs for congenital abnormalities versus like, you know, tumors and things like that so to perhaps, you know, leverage that more and share those experts and then also the focused areas of expertise among the different sites and just the question that I was going to ask earlier was whether it's possible to sort of, as Dr. Lee's presentation brought up with, you know, a patient with disorder of sex development and whether sites can sort of focus on certain areas like that and select patients who may have similar findings so that they can, you know, dive deeper into, you know, various specific conditions and study those. Thank you, Cindy. And our discussion leader is John Mink. John is Professor of Pediatric Neurology, NeuroScience and Pediatrics at the University of Rochester. He's also Chief of Child Neurology. His research interests include Baton's disease and movement disorders in children. And John is also on our Council, our NINDS Council. John.