JH and ecdysone signaling regulate insect metamorphosis through the master transcription factors, Krüppel homolog 1 (kr-h1), Broad-Complex (BR-C), and E93. Ecdysone signaling activates successively expressed ecdysone responsive transcription factors (ERTFs), and the interaction between ERTFs determines the expression profiles of ERTFs themselves. Through the construction of expressed sequence tag (EST) database of Bombyx mori from many tissues, the existence of a large number of cuticular protein (CP) genes was identified in wing disc cDNA library of the 3 days after the start of wandering (W3). From the genomic analysis, 12 types of CP clusters of CP genes were identified. DNA sequences of CP genes revealed the duplication of CP genes, which suggests to reflect the insect evolution. These CP genes responded to ecdysone and ecdysone pulse; therefore, CP genes were applied for the analysis of transcriptional regulation by ERTF. The binding sites of ERTF have been reported to exist upstream of CP genes in several insects, and the activation of CP genes occurred by the binding of ERTFs. Through the analysis, the following were speculated; the successive appearance of ERTFs and the activation of target genes resulted in the successively produced CPs and cuticular layer. The sequence of the ERTF and CP gene expression was the same at larval to pupal and pupal to adult transformation. The involvement of several ERTFs in one CP gene expression was also clarified; BmorCPG12 belongs to group showing expression peak at W3 and was regulated by two ERTFs; BHR3 and ßFTZ-F1, BmorCPH2 belongs to group showing expression peak at P0 and was regulated by two ERTFs; ßFTZ-F1 and E74A. The involvement of BHR39 as a negative regulator of CP gene expression was found. Larval, pupal, and adult cuticular layers were supposed to be constructed by the combination of different and similar types of CPs, through the expressed timing of CP genes.

Initiatives that collect and share genomic data to advance health research are widespread and accelerating. Commercial interests in these efforts, while vital, may erode public trust and willingness to provide personal genomic data, upon which these initiatives depend. Understanding public attitudes towards providing genomic data for health research in the context of commercial involvement is critical. A PRISMA-guided search of six online academic databases identified 113 quantitative and qualitative studies using primary data pertaining to public attitudes towards commercial actors in the management, collection, access, and use of biobank and genomic data. The presence of commercial interests yields interrelated public concerns around consent, privacy and data security, trust in science and scientists, benefit sharing, and the ownership and control of health data. Carefully considered regulatory and data governance and access policies are therefore required to maintain public trust and support for genomic health initiatives.

Access to genomic sequencing (GS) and resulting recommendations have not been well described in pediatric oncology. GS results may provide a cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) diagnosis that warrants screening and specialist visits beyond cancer treatment, including testing or surveillance for family members. The Texas KidsCanSeq (KCS) Study evaluated implementation of GS in a diverse pediatric oncology population. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 20) to explore experiences of KCS patients\' families around learning about a CPS diagnosis and following up on recommended care. We used qualitative content analysis to develop themes and subthemes across families\' descriptions of their experiences accessing care and to understand which factors presented barriers and/or facilitators. We found participants had difficulty differentiating which follow-up care recommendations were made for their child\'s current cancer treatment versus the CPS. In families\' access to follow-up care for CPS, organizational factors were crucial: travel time and distance were common hardships, while coordination of care to streamline multiple appointments with different providers helped facilitate CPS care. Financial factors also impacted families\' access to CPS-related follow-up care: having financial assistance and insurance were facilitators for families, while costs and lack of insurance posed as barriers for patients who lost coverage during transitions from pediatric to adult care, and for adult family members who had no coverage. Factors related to beliefs and perceptions, specifically perceiving the risk as less salient to them and feeling overwhelmed with the patient\'s cancer care, presented barriers to follow-up care primarily for family members. Regarding social factors, competing life priorities made it difficult for families to access follow-up care, though having community support alleviated these barriers. We suggest interventions to improve coordination of cancer treatment and CPS-related care and adherence to surveillance protocols for families as children age, such as care navigators and integrating longitudinal genetic counseling into hereditary cancer centers.

UNASSIGNED: Indigenous Peoples are increasingly exerting governance and oversight over genomic research with citizens of their nations, raising questions about how best to enforce research regulation between American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples and researchers.
UNASSIGNED: Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics research with Indigenous Peoples in the US.
UNASSIGNED: We report findings related to (1) considerations for Indigenous governance, (2) institutional relationships upholding sovereignty, (3) expectations for research approvals, and (4) agreements enacting Indigenous governance. Participants described concerns about different ways of exerting oversight, relationships and agreements between Indigenous Peoples and researchers, and gaps that need to be addressed to strengthen existing governance of genomic data.
UNASSIGNED: The results will ultimately guide policy-making and development of new strategies for Indigenous Peoples to enforce oversight in research to promote ethically and culturally appropriate research.

Biobanking and genomic research requires collection and storage of human tissue from study participants. From participants\' perspectives within the African context, this can be associated with fears and misgivings due to a myriad of factors including myths and mistrust of researchers. From the researchers angle ethical dilemmas may arise especially with consenting and sample reuse during storage. The aim of this paper was to explore these ethical considerations in the establishment and conduct of biobanking and genomic studies in Africa.
We conducted a narrative synthesis following a comprehensive search of nine (9) databases and grey literature. All primary research study designs were eligible for inclusion as well as both quantitative and qualitative evidence from peer reviewed journals, spanning a maximum of 20 years (2000-2020). It focused on research work conducted in Africa, even if data was stored or analysed outside the region.
Of 2,663 title and abstracts screened, 94 full texts were retrieved and reviewed for eligibility. We included 12 studies (7 qualitative; 4 quantitative and one mixed methods). Ethical issues described in these papers related to community knowledge and understanding of biobanking and genomic research, regulation, and governance of same by research ethics committees, enrolment of participants, types of informed consents, data collection, storage, usage and sharing as well as material transfer, returning results and benefit sharing. ca. Biospecimen collection and storage is given in trust and participants expect confidentially of data and results generated. Most participants are comfortable with broad consent due to trust in researchers, though a few would like to be contacted for reconsenting in future studies, and this would depend on whether the new research is for good cause. Sharing data with external partners is welcome in some contexts but some research participants did not trust foreign researchers.
Biobanking and genomic studies are a real need in Africa. Linked to this are ethical considerations related to setting up and participation in biobanks as well as data storage, export, use and sharing. There is emerging or pre-existing consensus around the acceptability of broad consent as a suitable model of consent, the need for Africans to take the lead in international collaborative studies, with deliberate efforts to build capacity in local storage and analysis of samples and employ processes of sample collection and use that build trust of communities and potential study participants. Research ethics committees, researchers and communities need to work together to work together to adapt and use clearly defined ethical frameworks, guidelines, and policy documents to harmonize the establishment and running of biobanking and genomic research in Africa.

In both the EU and USA, genetic data are recognized as a special category of data that requires heightened privacy protection. Identifiability and sensitivity are central pillars of the regulatory framework in both jurisdictions: the privacy concerns stem from the assumption that genetic data are capable of identifying the individual and reveals sensitive information about them. But not all genetic data are identifiable and sensitive, nor are genetic data necessarily different from other types of big data in terms of these issues. This article argues that a more nuanced approach is needed to assess the threat to privacy interests posed by uses of genetic data. The privacy interests involved should be distinguished in terms of proposed use, the amount of data in question, and its uniqueness and informational content. When these factors are disaggregated, it is clear that both regulatory schemes could better achieve their goals by focusing more on the ways genetic data can be used rather than on their status as a special category of data.

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Even though there is a significant amount of scholarly work examining the ethical issues surrounding human genomics research, little is known about its footing in Malaysia. This study aims to explore the experience of local researchers and research ethics committee (REC) members in developing it in Malaysia. In-depth interviews were conducted from April to May 2021, and the data were thematically analysed. In advancing this technology, both genomics researchers and REC members have concerns over how this research is being developed in the country especially the absence of a clear ethical and regulatory framework at the national level as a guidance. However, this study argues that it is not a salient issue as there are international guidelines in existence and both researchers and RECs will benefit from a training on the guidelines to ensure genomics research can be developed in an ethical manner.

Background: Psychiatric genomic research is a growing field of research in Africa that is looking at epigenetics of psychiatric disorders; within which a specific focus is neurodevelopmental disorders including intellectual disability (ID). Conducting this type of research is important to identify etiologies and possible interventions or areas for further research. However, genomic research generally, and psychiatric genomic research, faces many social, ethical, cultural, and legal issues; research involving people with ID is particularly challenging. All research stakeholders - researchers, research review bodies, regulators, patient groups - generally agree that involving people with ID require several considerations, including extra protection. It is also recognized that not involving people with ID in research that is relevant to them means that opportunities to learn on specific issues including lived experiences are missed. In this scoping review, we aim to describe the range of ethical and social-cultural issues concerning involvement of people with intellectual disability in genomic research from existing literature. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping review and reported using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Iterative review stages will include systematic search of six databases (Embase, Ovid Global Health, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Web of Science core collection), screening, charting and synthesis of the data. Forward and backward citation screening will also be done for the articles included in the final review. We will include peer reviewed journal articles, guidance documents and reports. Screening and selection of studies based on the eligibility criteria will be done independently by three reviewers; conflicts will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer and other experts. Results: The results will be included in the scoping review publication. Conclusions: This scoping review will identify key areas of ethical tensions and possible solutions and inform opportunities for empirical ethics studies.

UNASSIGNED: Due to racial, cultural, and linguistic marginalization, some populations experience disproportionate barriers to genetic testing in both clinical and research settings. It is difficult to track such disparities due to non-inclusive self-reported race and ethnicity categories within the electronic health record (EHR). Inclusion and access for all populations is critical to achieve health equity and to capture the full spectrum of rare genetic disease.
UNASSIGNED: We aimed to create revised race and ethnicity categories. Additionally, we identified racial and ethnic under-representation amongst three cohorts: (1) the general Boston Children\'s Hospital patient population (general BCH), (2) the BCH patient population that underwent clinical genomic testing (clinical sequencing), and (3) Children\'s Rare Disease Cohort (CRDC) research initiative participants.
UNASSIGNED: Race and ethnicity data were collected from the EHRs of the general BCH, clinical sequencing, and CRDC cohorts. We constructed a single comprehensive set of race and ethnicity categories. EHR-based race and ethnicity variables were mapped within each cohort to the revised categories. Then, the numbers of patients within each revised race and ethnicity category were compared across cohorts.
UNASSIGNED: There was a significantly lower percentage of Black or African American/African, non-Hispanic/non-Latine individuals in the CRDC cohort compared with the general BCH cohort, but there was no statistically significant difference between the CRDC and the clinical sequencing cohorts. There was a significantly lower percentage of multi-racial, Hispanic/Latine individuals in the CRDC cohort than the clinical sequencing cohort. White, non-Hispanic/non-Latine individuals were over-represented in the CRDC compared to the two other groups.
UNASSIGNED: We highlight underrepresentation of certain racial and ethnic populations in sequencing cohorts compared to the general hospital population. We propose a range of measures to address these disparities, to strive for equitable future precision medicine-based clinical care and for the benefit of the whole rare disease community.
Racial and ethnic representation amongst general clinics, clinics that provide genetic testing, and genomic-based research at Boston Children’s Hospital Background: Individuals who identify as belonging to a race or ethnicity that has been historically excluded from mainstream cultural, political, and economic activities (‘historically marginalized’) experience barriers to clinical care. These barriers are further complicated for families touched by rare genetic conditions. Obstacles can present as accessibility issues (transportation, financial, linguistic), low-quality medical care, or inadequate inclusion in research. It is important to have representation within rare disease research so that the full scope of these conditions is understood, leading to better patient care for all, and for health equity. Objective: We aimed to (1) to create new and inclusive race and ethnicity categories for the electronic health record (EHR) and (2) identify differences in racial and ethnic representation amongst patients generally seen at Boston Children’s Hospital (general BCH), those who received genetic testing in a clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital (clinical sequencing), and participants who enrolled in the CRDC research project at Boston Children’s Hospital (CRDC). Design and Methods: We combined race and ethnicity categories to make more inclusive options than existing EHR categories. Differences in race and ethnicity representation were observed when looking at the three different patient groups (general BCH, clinical sequencing, and CRDC). Results: We observed a lower percentage of individuals who self-identify as Black or African American/African, non-Hispanic/non-Latine in the genetic testing groups (both research and clinical) than in the general BCH group. Individuals who self-identify as multi-racial, Hispanic/Latine are also under-represented in the CRDC research compared to the two other groups. The highest population percentage seen in all groups was that of patients who identify as White, non-Hispanic/non-Latine. This group was over-represented in the research CRDC group compared to the two others. Conclusion: Our study found that patients who are historically marginalized are underrepresented in clinical genetic testing and genomic research studies compared to their White counterparts. In order to benefit all patients with rare genetic conditions, these differences must be addressed by improving access to specialty physicians/researchers and incorporating inclusive language in the EHR, clinics, and research protocols.