 Thank you very much. I know that this is not a sequencing program, but I am going to give a slightly sequencing centric presentation for the transitions of care. I also did speak with some of the PIs, the clinical PIs, so I'll be able to share some perspective on how they feel on the ongoing evaluation of patients. So we've discussed this already several times this morning, but this is just a list of how the UDN evaluation progresses. And just to put some points on the sequencing, the sites are able to choose between exome or genome sequencing, and as Brendan talked about in his example, there are some cases for which exome might be more appropriate, such as if you're looking for really deep sequencing, perhaps because mosaicism might be a mechanism, or if you're looking perhaps for structural variants in which case you might choose a genome. And as other people have discussed, a lot of patients are already coming to a center with an exome, so in that case you might want to choose a genome. We are encouraging trios or quads. Of course, this is not always possible with families, but if it is, we are trying to get as many family members as possible in a trio or a quad type of arrangement. The interpretation is being done by both the sequencing core, and that tends to be more of a clinical evaluation, so these are done by clinical laboratories with certain standards of clinical interpretation. It's also being, the raw data is being delivered to the clinical sites, and as Brendan also illustrated, these sites are able to go in with a deeper look, and perhaps with a look that is slightly more focused on the phenotype that they have observed in the patient or are in the process of evaluating. Also all the results that are reported back to patients for clinical care are validated by another method, and currently this is Sanger validation. Then of course there are special studies that are available to network participants in the form of metabolomics, model organism studies, and functional studies. So what happens when an initial UDN evaluation is complete? The sites are planning to provide a detailed visit summary to the family and the referring physician, and then in the future, while the UDN may not be the primary source of ongoing care, of course a relationship has been established between the UDN and the patient and recontact with new findings should be facilitated, and I think that's one of the things we're going to be discussing, how does this recontact, and what form is this going to take, and how often, and under what circumstances. The evaluation of course is never truly complete. There are a couple of different scenarios that we need to consider. One is that the diagnosis is established at a UDN visit, but as was mentioned before, this is likely to be a rare or ultra rare diagnosis, and as such the UDN may play an important role in determining or studying what management approaches are most appropriate for this patient, and documenting that for future patients. The UDN may also play an important role in describing the phenotype, and so we can see that there is going to be ongoing interaction between the UDN and patients. In the second case where the diagnosis is not established at the UDN visit, of course this leaves a lot of room for future opportunities for contact. Further studies by the UDN core, reanalysis of sequence data, and I'll show you some examples of where reanalysis has been important in increasing the diagnostic rate, and then there'll be new gene discoveries outside of the UDN which can then be brought to bear on UDN patients, and then the UDN creates a very novel environment for discovery within our network. So reanalysis of sequence data is important because analytical tools are advancing, and with these improvements they enable us to look at areas that perhaps were not looked at during the first pass of the sequence analysis. Of course there's also improved curation of variants, and as patients become identified with certain variants, this information then comes to bear on new patients. We may get additional information from family members that was not available at the time of initial sequence interpretation. The affected status of a member of the trio or quad could change, maybe from affected to unaffected, and that of course will influence the interpretation. But all of those types of things really pale in comparison to new gene discovery, and this is really the largest driver of increased diagnosis rate over time. And I'll show you some examples in our clinical laboratory of how this really impacts. So this was a presentation recently given at the American College of Medical Genetics from our group at Baylor, and if you look at the almost 6,000 exomes that we've performed since 2013, and I should back off by saying we do mostly pro-band only, so not trios at the time, but pro-band only exome analysis, and this is all done on a clinical basis. Those that were solved in the first pass of clinical interpretation is about 25%, but then as you perform reanalysis, we've been able to make additional diagnoses in about an additional 5%, and this is driven really by new gene discovery being 62%. If you take a look at two cohorts that we published, the first was in the New England Journal of Medicine, this was our first 250 cases. We had a diagnostic rate at that time, and it was published in 2013, of 25% for those initial 250 cases. With reanalysis over the subsequent three years approximately, we've increased that diagnostic rate by 11%. So it's really, again, driven in the teal color by new gene discovery. If you look at the subsequent study that we published in JAM, and this is about 2,000 cases, that diagnostic rate initially was 25%, and over time, it's increased to 30%. So I think this is a concrete, two concrete examples of how we will continue to make new diagnoses in the network, and how important it's going to be to be able to maintain contact with these patients. So there are multiple ways that new gene discovery can be facilitated within the UDN. First is continued phenotype and variant mining, then reaching out to services such as Matchmaker, either within the UDN, perhaps, or collaboration with outside projects such as the CMG, or the Mendelian Project, and the more global Matchmaker tool. What are some of the challenges and opportunities? Speaking from the perspective of a clinical lab, we don't have a fully automated process for knowing when new gene discoveries are made. We get this data by mining PubMed, by looking for when OMIM is updated. But there's not a fully automated alert system for when there's a new gene discovered. Then querying our database and identifying those patients who have variants in the targeted genes, we need an automated process for doing this. And then having an efficient patient and physician recontact procedure. Again, within the UDN, I think this is something that is definitely attainable. But as we look towards the future and making this more of a generalizable approach, we lose contact with patients, patients lose contact with physicians, and sometimes this information is going to be lost. And so we know that perhaps up to 10% new diagnoses can be made. This is a problem that we're all going to have to consider. So that's the UDN perspective, and I think we can move on to the next talk. Thank you.