The mammalian gene function resource: The International Knockout Mouse Consortium

In 2007, the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) made the ambitious promise to generate mutations in virtually every protein-coding gene of the mouse genome in a concerted worldwide action. Now, 5 years later, the IKMC members have developed highthroughput gene trapping and, in particular, gene-targeting pipelines and generated more than 17,400 mutant murine embryonic stem (ES) cell clones and more than 1,700 mutant mouse strains, most of them conditional. A common IKMC web portal (www.knockoutmouse.org) has been established, allowing easy access to this unparalleled biological resource. The IKMC materials considerably enhance functional gene annotation of the mammalian genome and will have a major impact on future biomedical research

Clinical Research in Vulnerable Populations: Variability and Focus of Institutional Review Boards' Responses.

BACKGROUND:Children and patients with cognitive deficits may find it difficult to understand the implication of research. In the European Union (EU), clinical studies outside the EU directives concerning medicinal products or medical devices, i.e., "miscellaneous clinical studies", have no legally mandated timelines for institutional review boards' (IRB) decisions. GOAL:To evaluate the review process of IRBs for two different "miscellaneous" multicenter clinical research protocols involving vulnerable subjects (children and adult stroke patients). METHODS:Descriptive and comparative statistics. Protocol 1 is a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional screening study of a symptomatic pediatric population at risk for Fabry disease involving genetic testing (NCT02152189). Protocol 2 is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, blinded endpoint post-market study to evaluate the effectiveness of stent retrievers (NCT02135926). After having obtained positive initial IRB votes at the main study site, both protocols were subsequently submitted to the remaining IRBs. RESULTS:Protocol 1 was submitted to 19 IRBs. No IRB objected to the study. Median time-to-final vote was 34 (IQR 10-65; range 0 to 130) days. Two IRBs accepted the coordinating center's IRB votes without re-evaluation. Changes to the informed consent documents were asked by 7/19 IRBs, amendments to the protocol by 2. Protocol 2 was submitted to 16 IRBs. Fifteen decisions were made. No IRB objected to the study. Median time-to final vote was 59 (IQR 10 to 65; range 0 to 128) days, which was not statistically significantly different compared with protocol 1 (Wilcoxon test). Two IRBs accepted a previous IRB decision and did not conduct an independent review. Eight/16 IRBs required changes to the informed consent documents; two IRBs recommended an amendment of the protocol. CONCLUSION:Both clinical research protocols involving vulnerable populations were well accepted. IRB workflows and decision times varied substantially. Some IRBs accepted a previous IRB decision without the necessity of another reevaluation process. Requested changes were focused on the informed consent documents. A more standardized approach across jurisdictions is desirable

Time-to-final response [days] of N = 35 IRBs as function of quality of available web information about the submission process (p = NS, non-parametric ANOVA).

<p>Time-to-final response [days] of N = 35 IRBs as function of quality of available web information about the submission process (p = NS, non-parametric ANOVA).</p

Nature of requested changes in the informed consent documents of two studies submitted to N = 35 IRBs.

<p>The suggested changes to the protocol were either clarifications of wordings or more general scientific discussions that did not lead to a protocol amendment.</p><p>Nature of requested changes in the informed consent documents of two studies submitted to N = 35 IRBs.</p