assignment request nih

PHS Assignment Request Form

For assistance with the information required on this form, please refer to the appropriate application guide on the How to Apply page.

NOTE: The forms in these topics reflect FORMS-H, which must be used for applications with due dates on or after January 25, 2023 (see guide notice NOT-OD-22-195 . Also see the annotated form set and summary of changes for Forms-H.) For due dates on or before January 24, 2023, use FORMS-G.

Steps for Filling out the Form

The PHS Assignment Request form is used for capturing assignment requests.

This form replaces certain information from the application cover letter attachment, and should be used to:

• request an assignment to an institute/center for funding consideration
• request an assignment to a specific study section for initial peer review
• identify individuals who may not be appropriate to review their application
• identify scientific areas of expertise needed to review the application

This form is only visible to receipt and referral staff and scientific review officers, who may need to act on the information.

For guidance on completing the form in ASSIST, refer to the steps below.

Adding an Assignment Request Form

To add an Assignment Request form:

• Select the Add Optional Form button from the Actions navigation panel.

• Complete the required fields and any other appropriate information. Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).
• To save the information and keep the form open for further editing, select the Save and Keep Lock options.
• To save the information and close the form, select the Save and Release Lock button.
• To delete the form and return to the original application, select the Remove Form button.

NOTE: Selecting the Cancel and Release Lock button - followed by the Continue button on the confirmation - returns the form to read-only and does not save any of the entered information onto the form.

Viewing and Editing the Assignment Request Form

To view and/or edit an assignment request form:

Once the Save and Release Lock button has been clicked, the details of the form are displayed as read-only.

To further modify the form, select the Edit button.

Part 1. Overview Information

National Institutes of Health ( NIH )

R01 Research Project Grant

• April 4, 2024  - Overview of Grant Application and Review Changes for Due Dates on or after January 25, 2025. See Notice NOT-OD-24-084 .
• August 31, 2022 - Implementation Changes for Genomic Data Sharing Plans Included with Applications Due on or after January 25, 2023. See Notice  NOT-OD-22-198 .
• August 5, 2022 - Implementation Details for the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. See Notice  NOT-OD-22-189 .

See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility .

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) encourages grant applications from investigators interested in conducting basic, mechanistic research into the biological/genetic causes of cancer health disparities. These research project grants (R01) will support innovative studies designed to investigate biological/genetic bases of cancer health disparities, such as (1) mechanistic studies of biological factors associated with cancer health disparities, including those related to basic research in cancer biology or cancer prevention strategies, (2) the development and testing of new methodologies and models, and (3) secondary data analyses. This NOFO is also designed to aid and facilitate the growth of a nationwide cohort of scientists with a high level of basic research expertise in cancer health disparities research who can expand available resources and tools, such as biospecimens, patient derived models, and methods that are necessary to conduct basic research in cancer health disparities.

Not Applicable

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. 

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide , except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the How to Apply - Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the How to Apply - Application Guide , follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. notice of funding opportunity description.

This notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) encourages grant applications from investigators interested in conducting basic, mechanistic research into the biological/genetic causes of cancer health disparities. These research project grants (R01) will support innovative studies designed to investigate biological/genetic bases of cancer disparities, such as (1) mechanistic studies of biological factors associated with cancer disparities, including those related to basic research in cancer biology or cancer prevention strategies, (2) the development and testing of new methodologies and models, and (3) secondary data analyses. This NOFO is also designed to aid and facilitate the growth of a nationwide cohort of scientists with a high level of basic research expertise in cancer health disparities research who can expand available resources and tools, such as biospecimens, patient-derived models, and methods that are necessary to conduct basic research in cancer health disparities.

Please note that this NOFO will be reissued on the simplified review framework (SRF) template in 2025 to allow for resubmissions and renewals. See Simplified Review Framework for NIH Research Project Grant Applications.

In the United States, several racial/ethnic populations demonstrate increased incidence and/or more aggressive disease for specific cancer types. For example, African American males have higher rates of prostate and lung cancer, compared to their Caucasian-American counterparts, and both males and females exhibit a higher incidence of colorectal cancer and multiple myeloma. Hispanic/Latino individuals have the highest rates of cervical cancer and pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and one of the poorest survival rates for ALL. Similarly, Asians and Pacific Islanders have the highest incidence rates for liver and stomach cancer while American Indians and Alaska Natives have both the highest incidence and the highest mortality rates in kidney and renal pelvis cancer.

The causes of these cancer health disparities are multifactorial, including barriers in access to healthcare, cultural barriers, environmental disadvantage, differences in diet and lifestyle, ancestry-related risk factors, persistent co-morbidities, and chronic stress exposure due to discrimination and social isolation. An increasing number of studies demonstrate that even when socioeconomic and access to care factors are accounted for, incidence and mortality gaps persist between racial/ethnic populations for some cancer types, which suggests a role for biological contributors. Such studies have included identification of ancestry-related differences in DNA, RNA, and/or protein expression that are associated with cancer risk and/or progression. Other studies have shown the presence of differential tumor microenvironment components among diverse racial/ethnic populations indicating a potential role for immunity and inflammation in contributing to cancer health disparities.

These complex biological factors may enhance understanding of the differences observed in cancer incidence, prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates among underrepresented populations. The NCI encourages investigations of such biological factors to increase our understanding of the mechanisms that play a role in cancer health disparities.

Specific Research Objectives

The goal of this NOFO is to stimulate interest in the characterization and functional analysis of biological factors associated with cancer health disparities and to provide funding opportunities in this area. Applications should focus on basic cancer research, consistent with the research interests of the NCI's Division of Cancer Biology (DCB) , Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) , and Center for Cancer Health Equity (CCHE):

The DCB supports research on the discovery and characterization of basic pathways and mechanisms that regulate the development of a pre-malignant state, initiation of cellular transformation and cancer cell progression, formation of the tumor microenvironment, metastasis, and host responses to cancer, including immunologic or metabolic responses.

The CCHE supports cancer health disparity research focused on basic, hypothesis-driven studies that explicitly address the unequal burden of cancer amongst racial/ethnic minorities or other underserved populations across the cancer continuum (prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship).

The DCP supports research that will generate new information about molecular processes that are susceptible to intervention throughout the cancer continuum until invasive cancer and underlying mechanisms of cancer and its sequelae (i.e., mechanistic studies on the prevention or treatment of acute and chronic symptoms and morbidities related to cancer and its treatment), developing effective cancer screening and prevention strategies, discovering early detection biomarkers, and pinpointing mechanistically targeted nutrients in cancer prevention.

This NOFO encourages basic research projects that will develop and test new methodologies and new research technologies focused on specific topics in cancer health disparities. The availability of annotated clinical samples as well as enabling technologies (genomics/epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, single-cell analysis, imaging) make it feasible to study biological factors that contribute to cancer health disparities among different racial/ethnic populations.

Research projects must propose to investigate the interplay of race/ethnicity and/or other social determinants with cancer biology to mechanistically explain an unequal burden of cancer among populations. As such, proposed studies are encouraged to use biospecimens, patient-derived models, and/or data sets derived from different racial/ethnic and/or underserved groups. Studies investigating age and/or gender disparities, in the absence of race/ethnicity variables, are not solicited. Research projects using a comparative research design between at least two populations are encouraged, in which one or more is underserved.

Projects that are strictly hypothesis-generating, exploratory, and correlative studies are discouraged. As this NOFO is focused upon basic research, immediate clinically translational potential of the proposed project is NOT a requirement for the proposed projects.

Research topics of interest include but are not limited to :

• Causal drivers of early onset of certain cancer types in specific populations
• Genetic/epigenetic mechanisms of cancer susceptibility differences among racial/ethnic populations, such as epigenetic drivers and or suppressors
• Understanding how race/ethnicity impacts disease penetrance in individuals who inherit a cancer susceptibility gene
• Understanding if race/ethnicity has a role in regression of precancerous lesions
• Understanding if risk factors, including environmental exposures, differ across race/ethnicity to influence the development of precancerous lesions
• Identifying cancer risk and early detection biomarkers among underrepresented populations
• Examining how stress impacts the progression of symptoms across different population groups
• Identifying underlying mechanisms of symptoms that are responsible for altering treatment regimens that increase the risk of mortality for racial/ethnic minority patients with cancer
• Understanding the process through which precision therapies improve symptom management to reduce health disparities
• Detecting similarities and differences in cancer metabolism (e.g. alterations in metabolic fuel sources, fatty acid synthesis, lipid metabolism, glycolysis, nutrient uptake) among racial/ethnic populations
• Utilizing New 3D cellular models, organoids, xenografts, patient-derived models, and microfluidic systems designed to recapitulate and investigate cancer health disparities
• Identifying epithelial and mesenchymal markers in circulating tumor cells in cancer patients of distinct racial/ethnic groups
• Investigating how social health disparities may cause adverse gene expression that confers increased cancer risk and/or aggressiveness
• Understanding the role of microbiota in cancer health disparities during tumorigenesis and cancer progression
• Examining the role of oncogenic pathogens in the development of cancer health disparities during tumorigenesis and cancer progression in different populations groups
• Using computational analysis and modeling for predicting aggressive tumors in distinct racial/ethnic populations
• Understanding the biological mechanisms behind differences in toxicity and symptoms in different population groups
• Understanding the biological mechanisms of how stress impacts the progression of symptoms in racial/ethnic minority groups
• Deciphering the mechanisms of accumulated exposure to environmental toxins across populations
• Understanding the biological processes through which precision interventions improve symptom management to reduce cancer health disparities
• Investigating the biological bases of differences among racial/ethnic populations in response to cancer immunotherapies and/or development of immune-related adverse events induced by cancer immunotherapies.

Non-responsive Applications

The following types of studies are not responsive to this NOFO- applications proposing such studies will be considered non-responsive and will not be reviewed or considered for funding:

• Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS);
• Behavioral, social, environmental, or community/population-based studies that are not incorporating biological mechanisms in the specific aims; or
• Studies that do not propose cancer health disparity research.

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Section II. Award Information

Grant: A financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

The  OER Glossary  and the How to Apply - Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.

Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. eligible applicants eligible organizations higher education institutions public/state controlled institutions of higher education private institutions of higher education the following types of higher education institutions are always encouraged to apply for nih support as public or private institutions of higher education: hispanic-serving institutions historically black colleges and universities (hbcus) tribally controlled colleges and universities (tccus) alaska native and native hawaiian serving institutions asian american native american pacific islander serving institutions (aanapisis) nonprofits other than institutions of higher education nonprofits with 501(c)(3) irs status (other than institutions of higher education) nonprofits without 501(c)(3) irs status (other than institutions of higher education) for-profit organizations small businesses for-profit organizations (other than small businesses) local governments state governments county governments city or township governments special district governments indian/native american tribal governments (federally recognized) indian/native american tribal governments (other than federally recognized) federal governments eligible agencies of the federal government u.s. territory or possession other independent school districts public housing authorities/indian housing authorities native american tribal organizations (other than federally recognized tribal governments) faith-based or community-based organizations regional organizations non-domestic (non-u.s.) entities (foreign organizations) foreign organizations non-domestic (non-u.s.) entities (foreign organizations) are eligible to apply. non-domestic (non-u.s.) components of u.s. organizations are eligible to apply. foreign components, as defined in the nih grants policy statement , are allowed.  required registrations applicant organizations applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the how to apply - application guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. all registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference nih grants policy statement section 2.3.9.2 electronically submitted applications for additional information system for award management (sam) – applicants must complete and maintain an active registration, which requires renewal at least annually . the renewal process may require as much time as the initial registration. sam registration includes the assignment of a commercial and government entity (cage) code for domestic organizations which have not already been assigned a cage code. nato commercial and government entity (ncage) code – foreign organizations must obtain an ncage code (in lieu of a cage code) in order to register in sam. unique entity identifier (uei) - a uei is issued as part of the sam.gov registration process. the same uei must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application. era commons - once the unique organization identifier is established, organizations can register with era commons in tandem with completing their grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. era commons requires organizations to identify at least one signing official (so) and at least one program director/principal investigator (pd/pi) account in order to submit an application. grants.gov – applicants must have an active sam registration in order to complete the grants.gov registration. program directors/principal investigators (pd(s)/pi(s)) all pd(s)/pi(s) must have an era commons account.  pd(s)/pi(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in era commons. if the pd/pi is also the organizational signing official, they must have two distinct era commons accounts, one for each role. obtaining an era commons account can take up to 2 weeks. eligible individuals (program director/principal investigator) any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the program director(s)/principal investigator(s) (pd(s)/pi(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for nih support. see, reminder: notice of nih's encouragement of applications supporting individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups as well as individuals with disabilities , not-od-22-019 , and notice of nih's interest in diversity, not-od-20-031 . for institutions/organizations proposing multiple pds/pis, visit the multiple program director/principal investigator policy and submission details in the senior/key person profile (expanded) component of the how to apply - application guide . 2. cost sharing.

This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 1.2 Definition of Terms.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application . This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see  NIH Grants Policy Statement 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications ).

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. requesting an application package.

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide  except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the How to Apply - Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the How to Apply – Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply – Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

Sf424(r&r) other project information, sf424(r&r) senior/key person profile, r&r or modular budget, r&r subaward budget, phs 398 cover page supplement, phs 398 research plan.

All instructions in the  How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Resource Sharing Plan : Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the  How to Apply - Application Guide .

Other Plan(s): 

All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

• All applicants planning research (funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH) that results in the generation of scientific data are required to comply with the instructions for the Data Management and Sharing Plan. All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, must address a Data Management and Sharing Plan.

Appendix:  Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

• No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the How to Apply - Application Guide , with the following additional instructions:

If you answered “Yes” to the question “Are Human Subjects Involved?” on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

Foreign organizations.

Foreign (non-U.S.) organizations must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , and procedures for foreign organizations described throughout the How to Apply Application Guide.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 2. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I.  contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time.  If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications .

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the How to Apply – Application Guide .

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost .

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the How to Apply - Application Guide . Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply – Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form . Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the How to Apply - Application Guide .

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by  components of participating organizations , NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.

Requests of $500,000 or more for direct costs in any year

Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

Recipients or subrecipients must submit any information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. See Mandatory Disclosures, 2 CFR 200.113 and NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4.1.35 .

Send written disclosures to the NIH Chief Grants Management Officer listed on the Notice of Award for the IC that funded the award and to the HHS Office of Inspector Grant Self Disclosure Program at [email protected] . 

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy

Section V. Application Review Information

1. criteria.

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process.  Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

For this particular announcement, note the following:

Immediate clinically translational potential of the proposed project is NOT a requirement for this FOA.

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Specific to this NOFO : Does the proposed research project have the potential to advance the understanding of biological mechanisms contributing to cancer health disparities in underrepresented populations?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? 

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Specific to this NOFO : Is the scientific approach proposed adequate to effectively study cancer health disparities between at least two populations, in which one or more are underserved?

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects .

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research .

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section.

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms ) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures , using the stated review criteria . Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons. As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique. Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score. Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions: Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review. Availability of funds. Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities. If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.5.1. Just-in-Time Procedures . This request is not a Notice of Award nor should it be construed to be an indicator of possible funding. Prior to making an award, NIH reviews an applicant’s federal award history in SAM.gov to ensure sound business practices. An applicant can review and comment on any information in the Responsibility/Qualification records available in SAM.gov.  NIH will consider any comments by the applicant in the Responsibility/Qualification records in SAM.gov to ascertain the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and performance record of managing Federal awards per 2 CFR Part 200.206 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.”  This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships. 3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the  eRA Commons . Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. award notices.

A Notice of Award (NoA) is the official authorizing document notifying the applicant that an award has been made and that funds may be requested from the designated HHS payment system or office. The NoA is signed by the Grants Management Officer and emailed to the recipient’s business official.

In accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in  Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions . Any pre-award costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the applicant's own risk.  For more information on the Notice of Award, please refer to the  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 5. The Notice of Award and NIH Grants & Funding website, see  Award Process.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

The following Federal wide and HHS-specific policy requirements apply to awards funded through NIH:

• The rules listed at 2 CFR Part 200 , Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.
• All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the terms and conditions in the Notice of Award (NoA). The NoA includes the requirements of this NOFO. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities .
• HHS recognizes that NIH research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.

All federal statutes and regulations relevant to federal financial assistance, including those highlighted in  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 4 Public Policy Requirements, Objectives and Other Appropriation Mandates.

Recipients are responsible for ensuring that their activities comply with all applicable federal regulations.  NIH may terminate awards under certain circumstances.  See  2 CFR Part 200.340 Termination and  NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.5.2 Remedies for Noncompliance or Enforcement Actions: Suspension, Termination, and Withholding of Support . 

3. Data Management and Sharing

Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.

4. Reporting

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the  Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR)  annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.4.1 Reporting.  To learn more about post-award monitoring and reporting, see the NIH Grants & Funding website, see Post-Award Monitoring and Reporting .

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 8.6 Closeout . NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online:  https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help  (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources) Email:  [email protected]  (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-480-7075

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace) Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726 Email:  [email protected]

Anu Sharman, Ph.D. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-6250 Email: [email protected]

Tiffany Wallace, Ph.D. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-5114 Email: [email protected]

Asad Umar, D.V.M., Ph.D. National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-7070 Email: [email protected]  

Amy Rubinstein, Ph.D. Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Telephone: 301-408-9754 Email: [email protected]

Shane Woodward National Cancer Institute (NCI) Telephone: 240-276-6303 Email: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 2 CFR Part 200.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Research Initiatives
• Research at NINR
• Research Supported by NINR
• RESEARCH LENSES
• Health Equity
• Social Determinants of Health
• Population and Community Health
• Prevention and Health Promotion
• Systems and Models of Care
• Funding Opportunities
• Small Business Funding
• Grant Applicant Resources
• Training Grants
• Featured Research
• Strategic Plan
• Budget and Legislation
• Connect With Us
• Jobs at NINR

How to Request NINR in Grant Applications

Grant applicants who would like to request that their application is sent to ninr, should take the following steps:.

• First and foremost, talk with your program officer early and often. Program officers can advocate for your application to be assigned to NINR.
• Additionally, applicants can complete the PHS assignment request form to communicate specific application assignment and review requests to the Division of Receipt and Referral and to scientific review officers. NIH staff will consider all assignment preferences, although in some cases, the awarding component is pre-determined and assignment preferences cannot be accommodated.  

Additional Application Forms and Components

In addition to the Research Strategy and Specific Aims pages that describe your proposed research, standard NIH applications include many other components including but not limited to those listed below. Follow the instructions below to help determine which of these additional components are necessary for your application.  Some will be relevant to all or almost all grant mechanisms, while others may apply to only a subset .

• NIH Application Instructions  referenced in the NOFO under the "Required Application Instructions" heading
• Section I: Related Notices
• Section IV: Application and Submission Information

Write a succinct summary of the project that both a scientist and a lay person can understand.

• Use Specific Aims as a template—shorten and simplify the language.
• In the first sentence, state the significance of your research to the field and relevance to NIND's mission: to better understand, treat, and prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.
• Next state the hypothesis and the innovative potential of your research.
• Then list and briefly describe the Specific Aims and long-term objectives.
• Include appropriate keywords, e.g., immunotherapy, genetic risk factors.
• Do not include graphics or citations.
• Define or omit abbreviations.
• Be sure to omit confidential or proprietary information in these sections!

These sections may be small, but they're important.

• When your application is funded, NIH enters your title and Abstract in the public RePORTER database. 
• All peer reviewers read the Abstract and Narrative.
• Staff and automated systems in NIH's Center for Scientific Review use the Abstract and Narrative to decide where to assign your application, even if you requested an institute and study section.
• The Abstract and Narrative describe the importance and health relevance of the research to members of the public and Congress who are interested in what NIH is funding with taxpayer dollars.

What To Add and Not To Add in an Appendix NIH limits the information you may put in an Appendix (see list below of allowable materials) and will check that you did not try to bypass page limits by putting materials in the Appendix that belong in the Research Plan. Guidelines differ by grant type and notice of funding opportunity ( NOFO ), so check your NOFO carefully.

The list of allowable Appendix materials is limited to the following items:

Blank data collection forms, blank survey forms and blank questionnaire forms--or screenshots thereof

Simple lists of interview questions

Blank informed consent/assent forms

Other items  only if  they are specified in the NOFO as allowable Appendix materials

Applications that include unallowable Appendix materials will be withdrawn and not reviewed.

For additional details, see NIH 's  Frequently Asked Questions: Appendix Policy .

Submitting the Appendix Use the Appendix attachment of the PHS 398 Research Plan form. If you can't submit the materials electronically, contact the Scientific Review Officer listed in your chosen NOFO .

Assignment Request Form

Use of the PHS Assignment Request form is optional but can be helpful on a number of levels. The PHS Assignment Request Form contains four sections for receiving suggestions from applicants. This information is reviewed by the NIH ’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR)’s Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR). Note that DRR staff are not required to grant the suggestions made on this form, but often do when feasible and scientifically appropriate. Only NIH staff involved in the assignment and review process have access to this form.  Suggestion of IC Assignment  For applications to parent funding opportunities or those with multiple participating ICs (see “Components of Participating Organizations” in “Part 1. Overview Information” of the selected NOFO ), you may wish to recommend primary assignment to the IC whose mission most closely aligns with your proposed research. NIH’s Matchmaker may be helpful if you're unsure and reaching out to a NINDS Program Officer may also be helpful.   Study Section Assignment  Review “Section V,” Subcategory “2. Review and Selection Process” for information as to whether applications submitted to the NOFO you have selected will be reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) or by an IC-convened panel.  You may also find this information in “Section VII. Agency Contacts,” under “ Peer Review Contact(s).” If your application will be reviewed by CSR, it may be helpful to use the CSR Assisted Referral Tool to get an idea for which standing study sections might be the best fit for your application. NINDS program staff can also provide some input on this topic. It can be very helpful to write an application with a specific audience (in this case, study section) in mind when possible, so making suggestions here can be helpful.   Individuals Who Should Not Review and Why  NIH review staff automatically review conflicts of interest carefully and note that a scientific competitor does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest. Be sure to provide specific information as to why you think a person could NOT provide a fair and impartial review if you choose to suggest the exclusion of a reviewer. This should be specific details as to actions or observations that would suggest this person could not provide a fair or impartial review.  Areas of expertise needed to review your application  This section provides you the chance to help NIH facilitate the most fair and rigorous review of your application. Completing this section can be worthwhile even if you don’t utilize or complete other sections of the form. Use this section to highlight the disciplines involved in your project, and particularly if multidisciplinary. This will help CSR and the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) identify the types of expertise needed to rigorously evaluate your application and recruit and assign the most appropriate reviewers.    

Authentication of Key Biological and Chemical Resources

This section is an important part of NIH ’s Rigor and Reproducibility efforts and has been required in all applications since 2016. 

Note that reviewers are asked to comment on the suitability of this plan, and if not adequate, you will be asked to revise and submit an amended version addressing reviewer concerns via just-in-time procedures .  

In addition to the instructions for this section that can be found in the standard NIH application instructions , the below references may be useful for informing your development of this section: 

What Kind of Information Should I Include in the “Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources” Attachment? 

Authentication Plan Examples  

NIH Policy Notices on the Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources section.

Biosketches

Along with any principal investigators, include a biographical sketch with research support information for everyone you designate as senior/key personnel or other significant contributors (OSCs). This includes consultants and technical staff with senior/key personnel or OSC designations, even if they are not paid a salary from the grant. OSCs who contribute at least one person month or more effort must be designated as senior/key personnel.

Get the NIH   Biosketch Format Pages, Instructions and Samples , and learn more in the  Frequently Asked Questions on Biosketches . Use  SciENcv  to help you develop your biosketch and automatically format it according to NIH requirements. 

How Reviewers Use Biographical Sketches Reviewers check carefully to see whether the PI and others have enough experience with the techniques to execute the Research Plan. The personal statement and contributions to science can be big factors in how you rate on the Investigator review criterion.

Reviewers will check that you have asked for an appropriate number of people, amount of time, and level of expertise to conduct the research.

How To Create a Strong Biographical Sketch

• Make Your Personal Statement specific for this application. Use this section as well to explain any gaps in productivity or other aspects that may impact how a reviewer may score you as an investigator. Your personal statement can be a big factor in how you the PI rate on the Investigator review criterion. 
• All key personnel's biosketches have a personal statement too, which must explicitly state how their experience qualifies them for  their role on your project , including relevant education, expertise, and accomplishments.
• Carefully choose the publications you decide to highlight in your "Contributions to Science." Highlight your team's expertise by listing publications or manuscripts in press for each member. Reviewers will consider your seniority when they evaluate the scientific contributions in your biosketch. 

NIH offers the following advice for new scientists:

• If you have one publication, you could summarize the key finding of the paper and its importance in a short contribution.
• If you have no publications yet, you could provide a contribution that describes your efforts on other peoples’ papers and projects. For example, perhaps you used a certain method, provided the literature review for a paper, or cared for all the research animals.
• If you have no research or thesis experience yet, you may still be able to describe one contribution about your training to date. 

Note that you do not have to be an author on the publications you reference. It is up to you how you describe your contributions. As one way to do so, you could choose to list a key publication that builds on your work.

For further advice on biosketches, consult with your colleagues who serve as reviewers in your area of science. Learn more about NIH   Biosketch Format Pages, Instructions and Samples .

Cover Letter

Check required and optional reasons to write a cover letter for your application. Note that only the Scientific Review Officer—not peer reviewers or Program Officers—sees your cover letter.

When a Cover Letter Is Required You must have a cover letter for the following:

• Grants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs for any year.
• Conference grants (R13 or U13).
• Late applications.  Include the reason your application is late. Learn more at  Late Applications and Post-Submission Materials .
• Continuous submission.  Indicate that you are a member of an NIH study section qualified to submit at a nonstandard time.
• Video.  Indicate that you plan to send video files later.  

Optional Uses for the Cover Letter You may choose to use a cover letter for the following purposes:

• Point out RFAs and PAs . State the title if you're responding to an initiative.
• Note special areas.  Note the involvement of human subjects, select agents, or other areas with special requirements.
• Note a subaward  that will be active for only some of the grant's years.

In the past, applicants also used the cover letter to list expertise needed to review the application and to request assignment. Use the PHS Assignment Request Form described above instead.

Creating Your Cover Letter Here's how to create and format your cover letter:

• Start with the title and a brief description of your application.
• Use the PHS 398 Cover Letter File in the grant application—don't confuse it with the mandatory PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement form.

Follow the format NIH gives you in the  SF 424 Form Instructions .

Data Management and Sharing Plan

See NINDS ' dedicated Data Management and Sharing Plan page

This section gives you a chance to demonstrate the equipment necessary to successfully complete the work is available to you. Follow the applicable SF424 NIH instructions

Facilities and Other Resources

Use this section to describe any additional facilities and other resources necessary for the successful completion of the work proposed in your application. Follow the applicable SF424 NIH instructions

Introduction to Application/Response to Reviewers

This section is required only if the application type is "resubmission" or "revision" or if the NOFO specifies that one is needed. Follow the applicable SF424 NIH instructions

Genomic Data Sharing

Genomic Data Sharing is now included under the following section, "Data Management and Sharing Plan." See important information on NINDS' interpretation of the NIH Genomic Data Sharing policy .

Letters of Support

Your application should include letters of support from your institution, key personnel, collaborators, and other significant contributors. Relevant letters of support will assure your peer reviewers that your collaborations and institutional commitments are on the right track.

What To Include

The letter text should demonstrate the commitment of your institution and contributors. Summarize the agreements you have in place to support your project.

Familiarize yourself with the recommendations  and instructions in the NIH SF424  Letters of Support  instructions.

In multi-component applications, you may include letters of support in the overall component, other components, or both unless stated otherwise in the notice of funding opportunity ( NOFO ). You may also be instructed to begin the Letters of Support attachment with a table of letter authors, their institutions, and the type of each letter (e.g., institutional commitment).

Specifics for Collaborator Letters

When you request a letter of support, consider providing your collaborator a summary of your agreement as a convenient starting point. Discuss with them what information you think needs to be included.

The letters of support should clearly describe what type of support your collaborators will provide (e.g., reagents, animals, human samples, technology). Make sure to indicate whether the support is available to anyone on request or if your collaborator will provide it to only you. Our staff consider the latter point as they determine who may review your application without conflict.

Note that this letter is not the same document as your formal written agreement with the collaborator. Do not include the text of the formal agreement itself with your letters of support or your application. The formal agreement is for your benefit. NIH does not request, use, or need a copy of it. 

Don’t Send Too Many Letters of Support

Include the letters as described in the NOFO ’s instructions, but don’t assume that even more letters would be better. We strongly advise against collecting letters of support solely as endorsements of your reputation, expertise, or research plans.

In some cases, applicants have provided over a thousand letters of support. Large quantities of letters pose a significant burden on peer reviewers as they try to determine which are truly relevant to the project.

Unnecessary letters can also limit the pool of experts who are allowed to review your application. Due to potential conflicts of interest, anyone who writes a letter may not review your application. You might unintentionally eliminate the scientists who could have been your best supporters on the review panel. 

Multi PD/PI Leadership Plan

This section is required for any multi-PD/PI applications. This section allows you to explain how your team is organized and how you will navigate conflicts if and when they emerge, among other topics. Follow the applicable SF424 NIH instructions .

In the Project Narrative, the limit is THREE SENTENCES to describe the project's potential to improve public health.

Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives

Some NOFOs require this plan to describe how diverse perspectives will be included in the proposed work. If this plan is required, it will be indicated in the NOFO along with instructions provided in section IV of the NOFO if applicable.

References Cited

Put your research plans in scientific context for your reviewers and convince them that you know your field by citing wisely in your application, including a Bibliography. References show your breadth of knowledge of the field. If you leave out an important work, reviewers may assume you're not aware of it.

Cite publications that are current and relevant to the project or show that you or your collaborators used your proposed methods. You may also cite interim research products, such as article preprints, to demonstrate transparency as explained in NIH 's  Frequently Asked Questions on Interim Research Products . Do not include a copy of publications in the application.

If a publication is public, always link to it, or include its  NIH PubMed Central  identification number in the text. You will list all citations in your Other Project Information Form: Bibliography and References Cited form. Follow the applicable SF424 NIH instructions

Resource Sharing Plans

With the launch of the Data Sharing and Management Policy for applications submitted on or after January 25th, 2023, it is important to note that existing resource sharing requirements REMAIN in effect. 

Resource sharing can be thought of broadly as falling into two main categories: 

Model Organism Sharing Policy  

All NIH applications and proposals that will produce unique model organism research resources are expected to include a sharing plan for distributing these research resources in the application or proposal, or provide a justification for why such sharing is restricted or not possible. 

This policy statement applies to extramural investigators funded by NIH grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, including Small Business Innovation Research ( SBIR ) and Small Business Technology Transfer ( STTR ) mechanisms. All investigators are expected to develop a model organism sharing plan. There is no cost threshold for this policy 

Research Tools Policy  

To determine whether a resource is a research tool in the context of the NIH Research Tools Policy, funding recipients should consider whether: 

The resource is primarily a tool for discovery rather than an FDA-approved product or an integral component of such a product; 

The resource is a broad, enabling invention that will be useful to many other users, rather than a project or product-specific resource; and 

The resource is readily useable or distributable as a tool, as opposed to an instance where private sector involvement is either a necessary means or the most expedient means for developing or distributing the resource. 

The NIH uses a broad definition of “research tool” which can the encompass full range of tools that scientists use in the laboratory, including: cell lines, monoclonal antibodies, reagents, animal models, growth factors, combinatorial chemistry and DNA libraries, clones and cloning tools (such as PCR), methods, laboratory equipment and machines 

If through the work of a proposed application, a unique resource you are generating could meet at least one of the numbered criteria above, you should include a resource sharing plan in your application for how the unique resource will be shared or why it cannot be. 

For details on what should be considered and included in the resource sharing plan, review the guidance provided in the NIH Research Tools Policy .

Team Management Plan

Some types of applications require Team Management Plans to provide further details on how teams will be managed. Follow instructions provided in section IV of the NOFO if applicable. 

Want to contact NINDS staff? Please visit our Find Your NINDS Program Officer page to learn more about contacting Program Officers, Grants Management Specialists, Scientific Review Officers, and Health Program Specialists. Find Your Program Officer

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• Opportunities & Announcements
• Funding Strategy for Grants
• Grant Writing & Approval Process
• Managing Grants
• Clinical Research
• Small Business Research

Assignment of Application

Receipt and referral.

The Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in the Center for Scientific Review (CSR)  serves as the central receiving point for all competing applications, whether solicited or unsolicited. Upon receipt of a competing application, DRR: checks for completeness, determines area of research, assigns applications to one or more NIH Institutes or Centers (ICs) for possible funding, assigns an identification number that looks similar to this: 1-R01-MH123456-01, and assigns the application to a review group that has the expertise to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of the application. To reach the most appropriate assignment, DRR consults with ICs’ referral staff, Scientific Review Officers (SROs) and Integrated Review Group (IRG) Chiefs, and considers applicants’ requests (see Using a Cover Letter section below). For applications assigned to an IC review branch for peer review, a general assignment is made to that IC; the staff in the review branch subsequently decides whether the application is to be reviewed by an IC standing committee or by an IC Special Emphasis Panel (SEP). Additional information about this process at CSR may be found on their submission and assignment web page  . As noted above, applications submitted to the NIH receive two assignments through the CSR DRR:

• Programmatic assignment is based on the overall mission, specific mandates and interests of the IC.
• The assigned IC is responsible for the overall administration of applications, and will potentially provide funding, depending on review and other considerations.
• Once assigned to a specific IC, your application will also be assigned to a Program Official within that IC (see Step 1 for details on the Program Official’s role ).
• The second assignment (review) is to the review cluster (Integrated Review Group [IRG]) as well as to a particular review committee (Scientific Review Group [SRG], often referred to as Study Section) that will review the application, either at  CSR   or within an IC. For example, some grant applications that are assigned to NIMH are reviewed by a NIMH Peer Review Committee or SEP instead of CSR. Review assignment is based on the specific description for each standing scientific review committee .

Identifying the Most Appropriate Review Committee for Your Grant Application

While CSR or the NIMH Review Branch retains the responsibility for making the final determination concerning assignment of grant applications to a particular review committee, it is often in your best interest to be familiar with the available choices and to express your opinion at the time of application submission (see Using a Cover Letter section below).

To help identify the most appropriate review committee, look at the description and recent rosters for each review committee. These can be found using the search feature or related links at:

• Integrated Review Groups (IRGs) conducted by CSR 
• NIMH Peer Review Committees

Applicants should also consider seeking guidance from the Scientific Review Officer, IC Program Officer (often listed within the Funding Opportunity Announcement), and check out the NIH Reporter database of funded grants in order to identify the most appropriate review committee for you grant application.

One other type of review committee is the Special Emphasis Panel (SEP). These are special committees of experts that usually meet only once for the review of a specific set of applications. These types of applications may have been submitted in response to a specific Request for Applications, or are for specific grant mechanisms that are submitted only once per year, among others types of such applications. Because SEPs are set up on an as-needed basis, applicants cannot request a specific SEP. You can look for your assigned SEP and roster 30 days before the review on this list of SEPs  . The SEP codes will have the prefixes ZRG1 for CSR review or ZMH1 for NIMH review (please note that ZMH1 SRC 99 is a holding code only, used by all review committees convened by NIMH, including those subsequently assigned to standing review committees or SEPs.)

Using a Cover Letter

Investigators may include a cover letter (a PDF attachment for electronic submissions) with their application. The information within a cover letter can help DRR in referring your application to a particular IC and help the SRO conduct the review. You can use a cover letter to suggest a particular review group, to suggest an IC you think would be interested in your research, to describe the kinds of expertise needed to review your application (you should not, however, list the names of potential reviewers), and to inform the SRO of potential reviewers who you feel might be in conflict with your application. While cover letters are encouraged, please note that CSR and IC review staff make the final assignment and conflict decisions after carefully considering your suggestions and explanations, in light of NIH policies and referral guidelines. Note that cover letters are for internal use only (i.e., referral staff and SROs). Cover letters are not provided to reviewers. You must have a cover letter for the following applications: resubmissions, applications requiring IC approval to submit (e.g., grants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs for any year), genome-wide association studies (GWAS) or those studies that plan to access GWAS data in the NIH repository, late applications, and continuous submission (in which case you should indicate that you are a member of a NIH study section qualified to submit at a nonstandard time).

Checking on Final Assignment

Information on the final programmatic and review assignments can be found in the eRA Commons page related to the grant application several weeks after submission. If the information is not clear or there are questions about assignment, contact the peer review contact (if any) listed in the Funding Opportunity Announcement or the Division of Receipt and Referral at 301-435-0715.

Back to Step 3

Dual Assignments SOP

This standard operating procedure (SOP) includes the following sections:  Purpose ,  Procedure , Contacts , and  Links .

Some links will work for NIAID staff only.

To allow the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) to assign grant applications to more than one institute for funding consideration, based on NIH referral guidelines.

Dual assignments acknowledge shared interests of institutes in a scientific area and inform appropriate institutes of an application.

Applications may receive primary and secondary assignments. CSR assigns applications to institutes with programmatic interest in the proposed research or training. The institute with the most relevant program is designated primary; others are secondary. Principal investigators (PIs) can ask CSR for a dual assignment in their  PHS Assignment Request Form .

NIAID staff may ask CSR to add NIAID as a secondary assignment when: 1) an application is assigned to another institute but is of substantial interest to NIAID, 2) NIAID is considering co-funding, or 3) an applicant has requested it.

NIAID staff can request a secondary assignment of an application either before or after initial peer review. Alternatively, staff can request removal of a secondary assignment if the science is not relevant to NIAID.

An application is given Council consideration by both the primary and secondary institutes. If the primary does not intend to make an award, the secondary has the opportunity to do so.

For other information, see the Request for Primary IC Assignment SOP .

Investigators

• In your application's PHS Assignment Request Form, you can request up to three institutes for primary assignment of your application. CSR may make both primary and secondary assignments.
• After your application has been assigned to an institute, you can ask a program officer to request a secondary assignment.
• You can check your institute assignments in eRA Commons.

Program Officers

• Full grant number, e.g., 2R01AI12345-06A1
• PI's full name
• Any correspondence with the PI or other institute
• If the primary assigned institute is not able to fund an application, but NIAID, as the secondary, wishes to fund, follow the Request for Assignment Changes Instructions , prepare an assignment change request email requesting primary assignment to NIAID, and send it to your division coordinator. See the Request for Primary IC Assignment SOP for more information.

Division Coordinators

• Initiate an Assignment Change Request (ACR) through the ACR module when a program officer sends you an assignment change request email.

NIAID Receipt and Referral Group

• Verify the information in the ACR.
• Submit the ACR to CSR. 
• When you receive a request to add or remove NIAID as a secondary assignee, make a change in IMPAC II through the Internal Referral Module to notify CSR of the assignment change.
• Requests for adding a secondary assignment route to NIH’s Division of Receipt and Referral for final approval.
• Requests to delete a secondary assignment are auto-completed.

Applicants with questions should refer to Contacting Program Officers and Grants Management Specialists .

• Contact for NIAID Receipt and Referral Group

Use the contacts listed above for questions about your specific situation. If you have a general question or a suggestion to improve this page, email the Office of Knowledge and Educational Resources at  [email protected] .

• eRA Modules and Services
• NIAID Funding Policy and Process SOP
• Request for Primary IC Assignment SOP

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

USC Department of Contracts and Grants

PHS Assignment Request Form in Grant Applications

February 6, 2023

Announcement: ​ The National Institutes of Health is encouraging the use of the  Public Health Service (PHS) assignment request form  when putting together grant applications.

This form is available in nearly all competing NIH application form packages and allows you to provide specific application assignment and review information to referral and review staff.

Applicants may suggest NIH Institute/Center/Office (ICO) assignments, particular study sections, names of people who may have a conflict with reviewing the application, and areas of expertise needed for the review. The information provided is not included in the assembled application and is only shared with appropriate NIH review staff, not with reviewers or others at NIH.

Available resources to help identify which NIH ICO or study section may be appropriate:

• RePORTER  for grants where related research was funded and reviewed (see also  this blog ).
• Assisted Referral Tool  can help you identify potentially appropriate  study sections .

Please keep in mind that suggestions for peer reviewers are not allowed on the form (or the  cover letter  or anywhere else in the application). The PHS form clearly states “do not provide names of individuals” you would like to review your application as this could cause a potential  conflict of interest  between the applicant and reviewer.

Questions?  If you have any questions regarding the PHS form, please reach out to your  DCG Officer . 

• NIH Grants & Funding
• Blog Policies

NIH Extramural Nexus

Reminder to Review Accuracy of Grant Information Before October 3, 2024

We make data on all funded NIH grants available to the public on the  RePORT  website. One of the ways we provide information is by school/department, which you can explore using the  Awards by Location  feature. Because of inconsistencies in the way information on department and school names are provided in grant applications, recipient officials may want to make changes in how that information is reflected in NIH systems. See  this Nexus post  for more on how and why schools and departments are assigned to NIH grants.

NIH’s fiscal year ends on September 30, 2024, so now is the time for signing officials to verify the accuracy of their grant assignments to departments or components within institutions of higher education using the Grant Re-assign capability in eRA Commons. Since the data in these files are “frozen” annually to ensure the reporting files produce consistent and meaningful results, any corrections must be made by 8:00 PM EDT on Thursday, October 3, 2024, to be reflected in NIH annual reports.

NIH Guide Notice   NOT-OD-24-167  includes additional information on what authorized organization representatives or signing officials should know on how to verify information, make corrections, and more.

Resource: Steps for SO to Re-assign an Award  in the eRA Commons online help.  

RELATED NEWS

Before submitting your comment, please review our blog comment policies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Genome-wide transcriptome and gene family analysis reveal candidate genes associated with potassium uptake of maize colonized by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi

Affiliations.

• 1 Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Transboundary Ecosecurity of Southwest China, Yunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecology and Centre for Invasion Biology, Institute of Biodiversity, School of Ecology and Environmental Science, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650504, Yunnan, China.
• 2 School of Agriculture, Yunnan University, Kunming , Yunnan, 650504, China.
• 3 School of Agriculture, Yunnan University, Kunming , Yunnan, 650504, China. [email protected].
• PMID: 39242995
• PMCID: PMC11378567
• DOI: 10.1186/s12870-024-05398-6

Background: Potassium (K) is an essential nutrient for plant growth and development. Maize (Zea mays) is a widely planted crops in the world and requires a huge amount of K fertilizer. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are closely related to the K uptake of maize. Genetic improvement of maize K utilization efficiency will require elucidating the molecular mechanisms of maize K uptake through the mycorrhizal pathway. Here, we employed transcriptome and gene family analysis to elucidate the mechanism influencing the K uptake and utilization efficiency of mycorrhizal maize.

Methods and results: The transcriptomes of maize were studied with and without AMF inoculation and under different K conditions. AM symbiosis increased the K concentration and dry weight of maize plants. RNA sequencing revealed that genes associated with the activity of the apoplast and nutrient reservoir were significantly enriched in mycorrhizal roots under low-K conditions but not under high-K conditions. Weighted gene correlation network analysis revealed that three modules were strongly correlated with K content. Twenty-one hub genes enriched in pathways associated with glycerophospholipid metabolism, glycerolipid metabolism, starch and sucrose metabolism, and anthocyanin biosynthesis were further identified. In general, these hub genes were upregulated in AMF-colonized roots under low-K conditions. Additionally, the members of 14 gene families associated with K obtain were identified (ARF: 38, ILK: 4, RBOH: 12, RUPO: 20, MAPKK: 89, CBL: 14, CIPK: 44, CPK: 40, PIN: 10, MYB: 174, NPF: 79, KT: 19, HAK/HKT/KUP: 38, and CPA: 8) from maize. The transcript levels of these genes showed that 92 genes (ARF:6, CBL:5, CIPK:13, CPK:2, HAK/HKT/KUP:7, PIN:2, MYB:26, NPF:16, RBOH:1, MAPKK:12 and RUPO:2) were upregulated with AM symbiosis under low-K conditions.

Conclusions: This study indicated that AMF increase the resistance of maize to low-K stress by regulating K uptake at the gene transcription level. Our findings provide a genome-level resource for the functional assignment of genes regulated by K treatment and AM symbiosis in K uptake-related gene families in maize. This may contribute to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of maize response to low K stress with AMF inoculation, and provided a theoretical basis for AMF application in the crop field.

Keywords: Gene family; Mycorrhizae; Potassium deficiency; RNA-seq.

© 2024. The Author(s).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Effects of AMF inoculation on…

Effects of AMF inoculation on maize growth and K uptake under different K…

GO enrichment analysis of the…

GO enrichment analysis of the differentially expressed genes in the four compared groups

Weighted gene co-expression network analysis…

Weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA). A Gene cluster dendrogram based on the…

Transcriptional regulatory network analyses of…

Transcriptional regulatory network analyses of genes in the midnightblue, darkturquoise and tan models.…

Heatmap showing the expression patterns…

Heatmap showing the expression patterns of the candidate genes in the midnightblue, darkturquoise…

Response of maize root for…

Response of maize root for AMF colonization under low K stress. A Schematic…

• Wang Y, Wu W-H. Potassium transport and signaling in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2013;64(1):451–76. 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120153 - DOI - PubMed
• Rawat J, Pandey N, Saxena J. Role of potassium in plant photosynthesis, transport, growth and yield. In: Iqbal N, Umar S, editors. Role of potassium in abiotic stress. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2022. p. 1–14.
• Barber SA. Potassium, in soil nutrient bioavailability: a mechanistic approach. New York: Wiley; 1995. p. 231–2.
• Zhang B, Thornburg T, Liu J, Xue H, Fontana J, Wang G, Li Q, Davis K, Zhang Z, Liu M, et al. Potassium deficiency significantly affected plant growth and development as well as microRNA-Mediated mechanism in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:1219. - PMC - PubMed
• Wang Y, Wu W-H. Genetic approaches for improvement of the crop potassium acquisition and utilization efficiency. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015;25:46–52. 10.1016/j.pbi.2015.04.007 - DOI - PubMed
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• BioMed Central
• MedlinePlus Health Information

Miscellaneous

• NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

September Brown Bag: Navigating Requests for Applications: Key Sections, Submission Systems, and Practical Tips

Who can attend, description.

Join the Johns Hopkins University Research Administration (JHURA) for the first Brown Bag of the 2024–25 season titled "Navigating Requests for Applications (RFAs): Key Sections, Submission Systems, and Practical Tips."

In this Brown Bag, members of JHURA's Grants Team will cover:

• RFAs as a solicitation method
• Key sections of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) RFA
• Demo of the submission systems for the NIH (ASSIST), the National Science Foundation (Research.gov), and NASA (NSpires)
• Submission issues
• Tips and tricks

Presenters:

• Meredith Piplani, assistant director of grants, JHURA
• Michael Ebelugwu, assistant director of grants, JHURA
• Denise Sparks, senior grants associate, JHURA
• Nancy Kerner, senior grants associate, JHURA
• Brian Line, grants associate, JHURA
• Chris Witzcak, grants associate, JHURA

Registration

Please register in advance

News Network

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram