Über uns
Interviews und Namensbeiträge


Biobank registries in Europe struggle with similar challenges

Common goal: “Structured yellow pages of biobanks” – Incentives for biobanks to register are absolutely needed

20.02.2015. National biobank registries throughout Europe prefer to establish “structured yellow pages” in order to make their countries’ biobank resources visible. Some of them also focus on additionally establishing “sample locators” as a means to foster scientific collaboration. However, all registries face similar challenges in achieving completeness of registration. This became apparent during the meeting of the biobank registries from seven European countries on 18th and 19th February 2015 in Berlin. Incentives for registration set by the national governments could greatly facilitate the process. The participants of the meeting expressed the wish to have more communication between them at the working level.

Seven national biobank registries and several representatives from academic institutions as well as from the European biobank infrastructure BBMRI-ERIC followed the invitation of the German Biobank Registry which is run by the TMF. The aim of the meeting was to mutually learn from the different approaches of the registries and to discuss aspects of standardization and quality. Due to the diverse historical, political and regulative situation in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany, biobank registries have evolved quite differently in these countries.

Legal obligation to register biobanks

In some countries, laws demand the registration of biobanks. This is, for instance, true for Finland, as Kaisa Silander (National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland) explained. The Biobank Act, which came into force in September 2013, aims at promoting openness in the use of human biological samples and allows wide consent which may also be applied to old sample collections. By end of 2015, nine large biobanks that are being established simultaneously will be registered in the Finnish Biobank Network BBMRI.fi.

Sweden as well has a legal obligation for biobanks to register: Any sample stored in health care biobanks needs to be registered in the Swedish Biobank Registry (SBR) at the National Board of Health and Welfare. The aim is to be able to find samples in case of consent withdrawal. However, as Loreana Norlin and Roxana Merino Martinez (Karolinska Institutet, Sweden) pointed out, no diagnosis and clinical information or linkage to other registers is available in the SBR. This is why in 2012 the BBMRI.se register was launched to gather meta-data on sample collections and research studies using human biological samples, including diagnosis and clinical information on a meta level. The BBMRI.se register – building on the first version of the standard vocabulary MIABIS discussed later during the meeting – currently covers 114 sample collections with samples from approximately 1.4 million donors. But as Loreana Norlin said it was tough to get the register started and keep the people motivated in pursuing to populate the register with their data. In the very near future a new register will be built in Sweden.

Some countries have more than one registry

Belgium even has three Biobank registries: The Belgium Virtual Tumourbank (BVT), the Biothèque de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, and the Flemish biobanking initiative CMI, as Annelies Debucquoy from the BVT, and, in her function as the representative of the Belgian Biobank Consensus Platform explained. In Belgium, interestingly, biobanks get financial support from the government, for example to register in the BVT, which is a very strong motivation for the sake of completeness. The three registers aim at creating a Belgian Virtual Biobank Catalogue in compliance with BBMRI-ERIC guidelines by the end of 2015. The harmonization of the dataset for registration of the samples has already been achieved. However, access to the data is restricted to those who have a Belgian ID and even only after registration.

In contrast, Denmark enjoys a very open access policy. As Bartlomiej Wilkowski (Statens Serum Institute, Denmark) pointed out the Biobank Register at the Danish National Biobank has been launched in 2013 and integrates data from various Danish registers and biobanks. Motivations for the initiative were to provide information on existing samples for epidemiological register-based research and to support clinical hospital biobanks. The biobank register system will allow to track diagnoses and samples of individuals throughout their lives so that biomarkers may be detected in earlier samples if a person develops a specific disease later on. 16.3 million samples from 5.1 million donors are openly searchable by researchers from all over the world.

Searching for samples

The Austrian BBMRI.at Platform also aims at providing not only aggregated data on biobanks and sample collections but also discusses how information on samples, donors and molecular data may be accessed in future. Horst Pichler (University of Klagenfurt, Austria) presented the data model and explained that the data are administered by the ten Austrian biobank partners. The Austrian platform uses Liferay, which will also being used by the upcoming new Swedish register and has been applied by the German Biobank Registry as well. This enables knowledge sharing and mutual support for future IT developments between the registries.

An alternative approach to the administration of data by the biobanks may be to provide the facilities for an automated import from a local biobank catalogue. This is what the BBMRI.nl initiative tries to achieve in order to connect the more than 200 biobanks that exist in the Netherlands. However, as David van Enckevort (University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands) explained, at the moment the catalogue is rather a basic list of biobanks.

Soft incentives are not enough

Roman Siddiqui (TMF) stressed the aspects of avoiding redundant research and transparency as two of the main purposes for a structured “yellow page” catalogue of national biobanks. However, even if biobank leaders do agree with these arguments, this does not always result in them registering their biobank. The seven European biobank register representatives agreed that altruism will not be the driving force in guaranteeing the completeness of the registries. Regulatory or funding policies provided by governments, funding organizations or also journals would be much more effective.

In Germany, this was very obvious in 2010 when a tender initiative by the Ministry of Research and Education to build centralized biobanks at university hospitals requested the registration of the biobanks prior to application: In only a few days before submission deadline 79 biobanks registered in the German Biobank Registry. As discussed, the meeting participants concluded that the European Biobank Infrastructure (BBMRI-ERIC) should strengthen its support to the national register initiatives by giving official advice to the governments, to include their register infrastructures within their policies.

A standard vocabulary for biobank registries

In order to facilitate communication between biobank registries and to stimulate cross-border research collaborations the “Minimum Information About Biobank data Sharing” (MIABIS) has been developed as a guideline which several of the biobank registries already use for their data models. The first version of the data set has been developed and published by BBMRI.se in 2012.

A MIABIS working group was established in 2013 and MIABIS 2.0 Core released in November 2014. “There has definitely been a need for an ontology” Loreana Norlin said, as there is a lot of interest in the working group. The results are available on the MIABIS wiki page [bbmri-wiki.wikidot.com/en.dataset] and will be published in due course.

Quality standards are still widely unknown

Daniela Skrowny (University Medicine Goettingen) presented two standards for quality in biobanks: BRISQ (Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality) is intended for clinical biobanks and used to describe the quality of the whole study rather than the quality of single samples. The journal Nature already recommends referring to the BRISQ reporting guidelines. SPREC (Sample Pre-analytical Code) is used to document the quality of samples where pre-analytical factors are coded in seven fields. A limitation is that this standard does not take into account sample processing. However, according to Daniela Skrowny, the main problem is that BRISQ as well as SPREC still are too much unknown in the scientific biobank community.

As an example of how process quality of biobanks may be defined and captured Robert Reihs (Medical University Graz, Austria) presented RD-Connect, a platform to connect databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for rare diseases. Amongst other things the portal enables the mapping of different Standard Operating Procedures used in the different resources.

Still an open question is how information on quality should be displayed in a biobank register. The participants agreed that it will be impossible to provide a complete picture for each single biobank in the register. Rather the biobanks should check a box in the register to confirm that they are able to describe their quality processes in a standardized manner. Registries could then provide a service to facilitate the communication between the requesting researcher and the biobank.

Define a real use case before building a specimen locator

The possible role of Unique Biobank Identifiers and challenges of their generation were also discussed vividly during the meeting. Different systems do already exist at the national levels. The suggestion was made that the national registries could be the entity to supply biobank IDs. These unique identifiers would be especially important when building a specimen locator at the European level as BBMRI-ERIC intends to do.

Given the diversity of the legal and technical conditions in the European countries, establishing an overarching specimen locator will be a difficult task. Petr Holub (BBMRI-ERIC, Graz) pointed out that a clear definition of a real use case would be needed before starting to develop something. Overall, the participants of the meeting agreed that providing aggregate information on biobanks at the country as well as on the European level still is very important.

The European biobank infrastructure should acknowledge and build on what is already available in the countries. Cooperation should also be sought with international partners beyond Europe as well as with infrastructures from other fields of medical research. 


Group picture (f.l.t.r.): Loreana Norlin (Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden), Horst Pilcher (University of Klagenfurt, Austria), Roxana Merino Martinez (Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden), Robert Reihs (Medical University of Graz, Austria), David van Enckevort (UMCG, Groningen, Netherlands), Heimo Müller (Medical University of Graz, Austria), Jörg Geiger (University Hospital, Würzburg, Germany), Kaisa Silander (National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland), Roman Siddiqui (TMF e.V., Berlin, Germany), Mathias Wieland (University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany), Annelies Debucquoy (Belgian Cancer Registry - BBMRI, Belgium), Ines Leb (FAU Nürnberg-Erlangen, Germany), Bartlomiej Wilkowski (Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark), Daniela Skrowny (Medical University of Göttingen, Germany), Petr Holub (BBMRI-ERIC, Graz, Austria), Sebastian Claudius Semler (TMF e.V., Berlin, Germany), Guy Redding (Fraunhofer IZI, Leipzig, Germany), Katharina Zoldan (Fraunhofer IZI, Leipzig, Gemany)

The biobank registry speakers (f.l.t.r.): Roman Siddiqui (German Biobank Registry), Kaisa Silander (Finnish Biobank Network, KITE, BBMRI.fi), David van Enckevort (Catalogue of Biobanks, BBMRI.nl), Loreana Norlin (Sample Collection Register, BBMRI.se), Annelies Debucquoy (Belgian Cancer Registry, BBMRI.be), Bartlomiej Wilkowski (Danish National Biobank Register), Horst Pichler (BBMRI.at-Platform)


Programme Details:

  1. Workshop agenda & outline

Workshop Presentations:

  1. 01. Sebastian C. Semler: TMF – a brief introduction [pdf | 532 kB]
  2. 02. Horst Pichler: Catalogue of Austrian Biobanks [pdf | 2 MB]
  3. 03. Annelies Debucquoy: Belgian Biobank registries [pdf | 2 MB] 
  4. 04. Bartłomiej Wilkowski: Danish National Biobank [pdf | 1 MB]
  5. 05. Kaisa Silander: Biobank registers in Finland [pdf | 2 MB]
  6. 06. David van Enckevort: Biobanks & Registers in The Netherlands [pdf | 1 MB]
  7. 07. Roxana Merino Martinez, Loreana Norlin: The BBMRI.se Sample Collection Register [pdf | 960 kB]
  8. 08. Roman Siddiqui: German Biobank Registry [pdf | 2 MB]
  9. 09. Murat Sariyar, Roman Siddiqui: Resume and Conclusions from Day 1 [pdf | 220 kB]
  10. 10. Loreana Norlin: MIABIS Minimum Information About BIobank data Sharing [pdf | 1 MB]
  11. 11. David van Enckevort: MIABIS as a modular system [pdf | 2 MB]
  12. 12. Daniela Skrowny: Biomaterial Quality Issues in Registers [pdf | 1 MB]
  13. 13. Heimo Müller, Robert Reihs: Defining and Capturing Process Quality in RD-Connect [pdf | 2 MB]

Workshop Pictures:

  1. Group picture [JPEG | 876 KB]
  2. The biobank registry speakers [JPEG | 999 KB]


News Archiv

September 2023 (6)

August 2023 (2)

Juli 2023 (4)

Juni 2023 (4)

Mai 2023 (6)

April 2023 (4)

März 2023 (3)

Februar 2023 (5)

Januar 2023 (5)

Dezember 2022 (4)

November 2022 (2)

Oktober 2022 (4)

September 2022 (4)

August 2022 (5)

Juli 2022 (4)

Juni 2022 (7)

Mai 2022 (6)

April 2022 (4)

März 2022 (5)

Februar 2022 (1)

Januar 2022 (6)

Dezember 2021 (7)

November 2021 (5)

Oktober 2021 (4)

September 2021 (2)

August 2021 (1)

Juli 2021 (4)

Juni 2021 (6)

Mai 2021 (4)

April 2021 (1)

März 2021 (3)

Februar 2021 (4)

Januar 2021 (4)

Dezember 2020 (3)

November 2020 (4)

Oktober 2020 (3)

August 2020 (1)

Juli 2020 (2)

Juni 2020 (2)

Mai 2020 (2)

April 2020 (4)

März 2020 (4)

Februar 2020 (3)

Januar 2020 (1)

Dezember 2019 (3)

November 2019 (5)

Oktober 2019 (3)

September 2019 (8)

August 2019 (2)

Juli 2019 (4)

Juni 2019 (4)

Mai 2019 (5)

April 2019 (3)

März 2019 (5)

Februar 2019 (2)

Januar 2019 (2)

Dezember 2018 (6)

November 2018 (5)

Oktober 2018 (9)

September 2018 (5)

August 2018 (3)

Juli 2018 (2)

Juni 2018 (7)

Mai 2018 (1)

April 2018 (1)

März 2018 (7)

Februar 2018 (2)

Januar 2018 (7)

Dezember 2017 (6)

November 2017 (2)

Oktober 2017 (3)

September 2017 (4)

August 2017 (1)

Juli 2017 (8)

Juni 2017 (9)

Mai 2017 (4)

April 2017 (2)

März 2017 (5)

Februar 2017 (2)

Januar 2017 (4)

Dezember 2016 (8)

November 2016 (5)

Oktober 2016 (4)

September 2016 (7)

August 2016 (5)

Juli 2016 (8)

Juni 2016 (5)

Mai 2016 (3)

April 2016 (11)

März 2016 (5)

Februar 2016 (3)

Januar 2016 (8)

Dezember 2015 (6)

November 2015 (3)

Oktober 2015 (8)

September 2015 (5)

August 2015 (4)

Juli 2015 (7)

Juni 2015 (7)

Mai 2015 (5)

April 2015 (2)

März 2015 (6)

Februar 2015 (7)

Januar 2015 (8)

Dezember 2014 (6)

November 2014 (9)

Oktober 2014 (10)

September 2014 (3)

Juli 2014 (6)

Juni 2014 (5)

Mai 2014 (4)

April 2014 (8)

März 2014 (8)

Februar 2014 (6)

Januar 2014 (7)

Dezember 2013 (8)

November 2013 (6)

Oktober 2013 (5)

September 2013 (10)

August 2013 (4)

Juli 2013 (8)

Juni 2013 (7)

Mai 2013 (4)

April 2013 (9)

März 2013 (9)

Februar 2013 (5)

Januar 2013 (5)

Dezember 2012 (7)

November 2012 (5)

Oktober 2012 (5)

September 2012 (5)

August 2012 (3)

Juli 2012 (4)

Juni 2012 (4)

Mai 2012 (3)

April 2012 (3)

März 2012 (5)

Januar 2012 (7)

Dezember 2011 (2)

November 2011 (8)

Oktober 2011 (10)

September 2011 (2)

August 2011 (5)

Juli 2011 (3)

Juni 2011 (5)

Mai 2011 (8)

April 2011 (4)

März 2011 (5)

Februar 2011 (3)

Januar 2011 (5)

Dezember 2010 (3)

November 2010 (3)

Oktober 2010 (5)

September 2010 (9)

August 2010 (5)

Juli 2010 (6)

Juni 2010 (12)

Mai 2010 (3)

April 2010 (4)

März 2010 (4)

Februar 2010 (4)

Januar 2010 (1)

Dezember 2009 (1)

November 2009 (1)

Oktober 2009 (5)

September 2009 (8)

August 2009 (1)

Juli 2009 (8)

Juni 2009 (6)

Mai 2009 (2)

April 2009 (6)

März 2009 (5)

Februar 2009 (4)

Januar 2009 (2)

Dezember 2008 (3)

November 2008 (6)

Oktober 2008 (3)

September 2008 (5)

August 2008 (3)

Juli 2008 (5)

Juni 2008 (4)

Mai 2008 (3)

April 2008 (6)

März 2008 (3)

Februar 2008 (1)

Januar 2008 (2)

Dezember 2007 (2)

November 2007 (4)

Oktober 2007 (4)

September 2007 (5)

Juni 2007 (2)

Mai 2007 (1)

April 2007 (6)

Januar 2007 (1)

Dezember 2006 (8)

November 2006 (4)

Oktober 2006 (1)

September 2006 (4)

August 2006 (1)

Juli 2006 (1)

Juni 2006 (3)

Mai 2006 (1)

April 2006 (3)

März 2006 (1)

Februar 2006 (1)

Januar 2006 (2)

Dezember 2005 (3)

November 2005 (1)

Oktober 2005 (1)

September 2005 (2)

August 2005 (2)

Juli 2005 (3)

Juni 2005 (2)

April 2005 (4)

November 2004 (1)

Oktober 2004 (1)

September 2004 (1)

August 2004 (1)

Juni 2004 (2)

Mai 2004 (1)

Februar 2003 (1)



4. TMF-AG-Sitzungswoche 2023

25.09.2023 - 29.09.2023

TMF-Arbeitsgruppe Register (AG Register)



„Nötig ist ein Gesamtkonzept"

Interview mit der EHEALTH.COM (Ausgabe 5/2023)

© TMF e.V. Glossar     Datenschutzhinweis     Info an den Webmaster     Seite drucken      Seitenanfang