Q: How should teams handle essential international expertise given the foreign sub-award ban?
A: All three NOFOs prohibit foreign subawards/subcontracts but explicitly permit: unfunded international collaborations, foreign components, funding for foreign consultants, and procurement of unique equipment/supplies from foreign vendors (Section III, Eligibility). Structure accordingly.

Q: Can one PI/institution appear on both a SenTec and a DVC/DCIC application?
A: There are no restrictions on who the applicants are across NOFOs. Organizations may submit multiple applications if "scientifically distinct," and bar duplicate/overlapping applications under simultaneous review. 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. These include:
  • Program balance, meaning the need for this program to include multiple tissues, pathologies, conditions and diseases and scientific perspectives to enhance the likelihood that program goals will be met.
  • Potential to work effectively in large collaborative efforts or research consortia which may be based on previous experience with NIH-funded research consortia, if applicable.
  • Adequacy of data, software, and analysis sharing and resource sharing plans.
  • Institutions that have not received substantial funding from NIH in the past.
  • Inclusion of new investigators and experienced investigators that are new to Common Fund consortia.

Q: Are MPIs from different institutes allowed?
A: Yes.

Q: If my DVC or DCIC scores well scientifically but my SOOC isn't selected, am I still fundable for the science-only portion?
A: Yes, you are still fundable. During review each application will have a special discussion of the SOOC (no scoring, just strengths and weaknesses) and that will provide the basis for any final funding decision. SOOC will be scored as part of in each of Significance, Innovation etc.

Q: How will NIH decide which single applicant gets the SOOC?
A: See the previous answer regarding the SOOC review discussion and funding decision.

Q: May investigators who did not participate in Phase 1 apply for Phase 2 and submit new ideas or senotypes?
A: Yes. Investigators who did not participate in Phase 1 may apply for Phase 2. New investigators, scientific ideas, and proposed senotypes are welcome; proposals are not limited to work explored in Stage 1.

Q: May postdoctoral researchers who aspire to an academic career apply, or are applications restricted to established PIs?
A: Yes, postdoctoral researchers may apply if their institution permits them to apply for NIH grants.

Q: Can a co-investigator be listed on multiple applications?
A: Yes. A co-investigator may be listed on multiple applications.

Q: Are multiple-PI applications with complementary but distinct expertise allowed?
A: Yes. Multiple-PI applications are allowed.

Q: How does the application format differ from an R01 application?
A: These awards are cooperative agreements that support work within a consortium. Your application must address the sections, components, and budgets specified in the applicable notice of funding opportunity (NOFO). UM1 applications have multiple components. Projects are milestone driven, and you are expected to generate the quantities of data specified in your application and incorporated into the award terms. Contact program staff with questions about specific requirements.

Q: Will supplemental materials, such as in-press papers, be allowed before review?
A: Follow the NIH post-submission application materials policy: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/submit/submission-policies#post-s…. No special exceptions are allowed in these NOFOs. These are not R01 applications, so exceptions provided for R01 applications do not apply.

Q: Does the 100-word limit on individual letters of collaboration also apply to institutional letters of support?
A: NIH is still updating how these letters will be submitted within the new Form J. Check the form instructions, as there may be a separate field for letters of institutional commitment. If the Form J instructions do not provide specific guidance at the time of submission, submit the letters in the usual manner.

The NOFOs do not state specific content requirements for these letters. A letter should be on institutional letterhead, signed by someone with authority to make the commitment, and consistent with the Research Strategy and Budget Justification. It is not an endorsement of the PI’s reputation. The commitment should be concrete and typically address laboratory resources, administrative support, personnel, space, sustainability planning, and protected effort. For a multisite center, each performance site should commit its own resources through its own leadership.

Q: Since bone and bone related tissues were not mapped by the SenNet Stage 1 TMCs, will NIA and SenNet consider adding new tissue types in Stage 2 DVCs? 
A: If you are mapping both tissues (healthy and diseased) this should be fine as bone and bone related tissues were not mapped in phase I. 

Q: Would tumor microenvironment/cancer qualify as a disease? 
A: If tumor microenvironment is studied in the context of cancer that would qualify as a disease, but tumor microenvironment alone wouldn’t. 

Q: Are new tissue models that were not funded in Phase 1 eligible in Phase 2?
A: Yes. New tissue models not funded in Phase 1 are eligible in Phase 2. New applicants and ideas are encouraged.

Q: Will new organs be considered for Stage 2, or is the focus limited to Stage 1 organs?
A: Yes. New organs are encouraged. The NOFO does not restrict proposals to organs studied in Stage 1.

Q: Does SenNet have a sample center that can provide human samples to awardees?
A: No. SenNet does not have a sample center to provide human samples to awardees.

Q: Is there a preferred disease model?
A: No. There is no preferred disease model. The scientific scope includes healthy aging, disease-associated senescence, and senescence associated with cancer treatment.

Q: May applicants provide mouse data and use mice in their studies, or are studies limited to human cell lines and samples?
A: Yes. Mouse studies may be used as preclinical models. Applicants must explain their relationship to human samples and their relevance to human tissues.

Q: May human organoids, organotypic tissue equivalents, iPSC-derived tissues, and bioengineered human tissues be used as primary experimental models, including for longitudinal studies of aging and senescence? What native human tissue characterization and validation are expected?
A: These models may be useful, but models alone may not fulfill the application requirements. Native human tissue specimens should also be included. In the DVC NOFO, Priority 1 is distinct from Priority 2: organoids and similar systems are unlikely to be suitable for Priority 1 but may be suitable for Priority 2. Stage 2 Priority 1 questions do not generally focus on studying what happens within organoid systems, including during longitudinal studies of aging and senescence. Suitability and the validation needed depend on the proposed project. Discuss your specific model, native human tissue plan, and validation approach with program staff.

Q: May models use cancer cell lines and known senescence inducers, or must they be genetically normal?
A: The suitability of cancer cell lines and senescence inducers depends on your project and its health or disease context. Contact program staff with details of the proposed models for a project-specific answer.

Q: May applicants propose generating new mouse models to assess the effects of senescence-associated perturbations?
A: Developing entirely new mouse models is time and resource intensive and may not fit the overall project timeline. Exceptions may be possible. If you propose to develop new models, provide sufficient justification for peer review.

Q: How prescriptive are the consortium data standards — fixed from Stage 1 or negotiable?
A: Existing SenNet Stage 1 or other relevant community standards will be adopted based on what makes the most scientific sense. Awardees must agree to abide by data deposition, QC, standardization, metadata, and public copyright-license policies developed collaboratively via the Steering Committee. Standards are co-developed post-award, not fully fixed, but Stage 1 infrastructure (sennetconsortium.org) is the starting point. The goal of these standards is to ensure usability of SenNet data by the larger community.

Q: Is profiling senescent cells based on their state of interest?
A: In general, yes. Understanding cellular state in the context of senescence is important.

Q: How will overlapping technology innovation between a SenTech application and a Discovery and Validation Center application be reviewed?
A: The NOFOs are reviewed by different panels. Technology development in a DVC is more limited and must support a demonstrated ability to generate data. SenTech allows broader technology development. Avoid overlap between the technology components of DVC and SenTech applications, and discuss specific situations with program staff.

Q: May datasets from other NIH consortia, such as BICAN UM1 or U01 projects, be used as preliminary data in Phase 2 applications?
A: Yes. Datasets from other NIH consortia may be used as preliminary data in Phase 2 applications.

Q: Does the $600K/yr SOOC sit inside the ~$3M/yr cap or on top of it?
A: Non-SOOC budget allocation is about $2.4M direct costs. About 6–7 awards will be made. Roughly $25M total cost budget which include SOOC at $600K direct cost.

Q: If I don't win the SOOC, do I recover that $600K for science?
A: No. See the previous answer regarding the non-SOOC budget allocation.

Q: What's the realistic per-award funding vs. the stated cap?
A: See the budget allocation above. Funding plans will depend on direct and indirect rates. Budget cuts may be applied.

Q: How does the 10% cross-consortium validation set-aside work when partners aren't known at submission?
A: UM1s require ~10% of total budget set aside starting Year 2 for cross-consortium work; these funds are "restricted" and reallocation requires NIH prior approval post-award. Specific projects within scope of the application will be developed jointly within the consortium based on priorities.

Q: Is NIH a voting member of the Steering Committee?
A: Yes. NIH will have 1 vote (despite some apparent inconsistencies). We hope to make decisions via consensus.

Q: For Years 2–5, is the 10% cross-consortium validation set-aside calculated from the budget for Elements A–C, excluding the $600,000 annual Element D allocation, or from the full budget including Element D? For example, would it be based on $2.4 million or $3 million?
A: It is anticipated that would be 10% of Elements A-C as only 1 Element D will be funded. These numbers ($2.4M and $3M) are approximate, and will depend on additional factors (merit, budget, availability of funds etc.).

 

Q: Must an applicant be the Stage 1 CODCC awardee to be competitive?
A: No. This is an open competition and applicants should not assume incumbency is required. The NOFO anticipates that the Stage 2 DCIC may be an organization other than the Stage 1 awardee. The Stage 1 NOFO required the Stage 1 awardee to work with NIH to create a transition plan. Under this plan the Stage 1 awardee will maintain baseline access to existing Stage 1 data for a defined period regardless of who Stage 2 awardee is. A Stage 2 awardee/applicant must maintain the research community’s core content of Stage 1 information. This includes, data + metadata; provenance; senotypes; and antibody validation reports.  

Q: If we are not the incumbent, what actually has to transfer to us?
A: The transfer is centered on the content the research community depends on, not on recreating the incumbent's service architecture. The minimum viable transfer comprises: 

• Data files (served from Globus data endpoints); 
• Metadata, delivered as portable exports (e.g., flat files / database dumps) sufficient for standalone reuse; 
• Provenance / lineage (neo4j json export or new4J database) information; 
• the Senotype Library (export in flat files/database dumps); and 
• Antibody validation reports (PDFs and database export) 
• OMAPs (clone/download from github) 

An incoming DCIC receives these resources in portable form and builds its own access layer around them. It is not required to inherit or run the incumbent's specific databases, containers, services, or user interface in order to serve the community. Useful information is available at https://docs.sennetconsortium.org/.  

Q: Do we have to replicate the Stage 1 portal, APIs, and UI?
A: No. Faithful reproduction of the Stage 1 application programming interfaces (APIs) or user-interface (UI) design is not an expectation of the transition The incoming DCIC is free to design its own portal, services, and interfaces. What must be preserved is continuous community access to the underlying content in a usable, portable form. 

Q: During the transition, who keeps Stage 1 data accessible to the community?
A: An incoming DCIC can rely on the Stage 1 CODCC awardee baseline for continuity of existing data based on a transition plan worked out between NIH and the awardee. Under its accepted plan — and assuming no additional NIH funding — the CODCC will keep the existing Web and Data Portals operating for five years. This means "maintain, but not enhance, and no new ingest" mode.  

As a result, the new DCIC does not need to assume same-day ownership of existing-data access to prevent a gap in community access. Applicants should still describe, per the NOFO, their strategy and timeline for temporary maintenance and transition on the way to standing up a complete replacement. 

Q: When will the complete Stage 1 dataset be available, and how does that affect our timeline?
A: Stage 1 data ingestion and processing is currently ongoing. It is expected that the Stage 1  CODCC completes processing and release by April/May 2027. Because the full Stage 1 corpus is not finalized until spring 2027, applicants should plan their transition activities to accommodate. 

Q: What is the status of dbGaP submissions, and what reporting exists?
A: The Stage 1 CODCC awardee provides NIH quarterly updates on progress submitting SenNet data to dbGaP, beginning with a detailed accounting spreadsheet on or before August 28, 2026 and updated each quarter thereafter. Applicants should be aware that dbGaP submission is a joint process between data provider and the CODCC and can take up to six months after sequence data are published in the data portal. The documented process is specified in the SenNet Data Submission Guide (docs.sennetconsortium.org). 

Q: What happens to Stage 1 data in the long term?
A: The Stage 1 and 2 data (both) will be the responsibility of the SenNet Stage 2 awardee. The Stage 2 applicant should include transition plans, approach, etc for all of SenNet resources.  

Q: How many years will SenTecs be funded for? 
A: Successful SenTec grants will be funded for a total of 5 years and consist of two phases: the initial SenTec UG3 phase covering the first two years of funding followed by three years of the UH3 phase.  SenTec applications must propose both UG3 and UH3 phases with milestones for each phase included so these two phases may be reviewed together. 

Q: What types of SenTec technologies will be considered responsive to this NOFO, and what will make an application non-responsive? 
A: Responsive applications could include, but are not limited to, technologies that: 

• Extend mapping goals to include lipidomic, proteomic, and metabolomic characterization of SnCs in vivo 
• Leverage ML/AI for tool development to identify and characterize SnCs and define senotypes 
• Develop and examine genomics/epigenomics and chromosome architecture of SnCs in vivo 
• Predict cell lineage trajectories for tissue-specific SnCs in human aging 
• Develop methodologies to identify tissue-specific targeted vulnerabilities for SnCs 
•  Integrate imaging approaches such as MRI, micro-CT, photoacoustic, Raman spectroscopy, histology, or morphology 

 Non-responsive applications would include, but are not limited to: 

• Applications focused on technology development with no clear consideration of senescence biology 
• Applications solely proposing single-cell transcriptomic technologies 
• Applications that do not inform human systems and outcomes 

Q: What are the budget limitations for the UG3 and UH3 phases, and are there any specific budget requirements or restrictions applicants should be aware of? 
A: All SenTec budget requests must be fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research since reviewers will evaluate the budget as part of the review process.  Foreign subawards/subcontracts are NOT allowed and pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 7.9.1.  Specifically: 

• UG3 Phase: Applications must not exceed $400,000 in direct costs per year 
• UH3 Phase: Applications must not exceed $550,000 in direct costs per year 
• Total project period: Maximum of 5 years (2 years UG3 + 3 years UH3) 
• Demonstration project set-aside: Approximately 10% of the UH3 Year 5 budget must be reserved for the collaborative demonstration project 

Q: How much flexibility will applicants have in defining their UG3 milestones, and what is the process by which NIH Program Staff may request changes to proposed milestones prior to and after funding? 
A: Applicants are expected to propose ambitious, quantitative 6-month milestones for the UG3 phase and yearly milestones for the UH3 phase in their application. However, the following should be noted regarding flexibility: 

• Prior to funding, NIH Program Staff will contact applicants to discuss proposed milestones, and changes may be requested by reviewers or NIH Program Staff 
• A final set of milestones will be specified each year in the Notice of Award (NoA), meaning milestones are formally established at the award stage 
• Post-award, if justified by data and information obtained during a previous project period, future year milestones may be revised 
• NIH Program Staff, in consultation with the PD/PI, may also suggest the modification or addition of experiments to be conducted during the award period 

These proposed milestones as a starting point for negotiation with NIH Program Staff, while ensuring that all milestones include clear and quantitative objective criteria for success that create meaningful go/no-go decision points. 

Q: What specific criteria will be used to determine whether a SenTec project successfully transitions from the UG3 phase to the UH3 phase? 
A: SenTecs will utilize the UG3/UH3 phased, milestone-driven cooperative agreement mechanism for the development of innovative, cutting-edge senescence technologies where the UG3 phase serves as a proof-of-principle concept period and the UH3 phase is focused on scaling, optimizing, validation and broader application of the developed technology or approach.  Transition from the UG3 phase to the UH3 Phase is not automatic and depends on several key factors including availability of funds at the time of transition review 

• Submission of a formal transition application for administrative review and approval by NIH Staff at the close of Year 2 
• Demonstrated achievement of UG3 milestones as specified in the Notice of Award, including quantitative go/no-go criteria 
• Proof of technology feasibility showing the SenTec is applicable to human systems 
• Evidence of SenTec PI active participation in the SenNet consortium, including attendance at consortium-wide meetings and working groups 
• Demonstration that the PI can address unexpected roadblocks that may have arisen during the UG3 phase 

It is important to note that given the inherently high-risk nature of transformative technology development, not all SenTecs may successfully transition to the UH3 phase. 

Q: Human-tissue demonstration — expected by end of UG3 or UH3?
A: UG3 expected outcomes include "proof-of-principle demonstration including non-human tissues and feasibility/proof that the technology will be applicable to human systems.”UH3 expected outcomes include "scaling, optimization and characterization of the SenTec in additional human tissues" and "production level data from human tissues." Therefore,feasibility/applicability to human systems in UG3; actual production-scale human-tissue data in UH3. 

Q: How should effort/budget split between core tech development vs. consortium-integration work?  
A: No mandated split. The NOFO requires interfacing with DVCs/DCIC, participating in consortium activities, developing SOPs/QC/metadata, and depositing data to the DCIC — but assigns no percentage. Integration is scored under the NOFO-specific Approach criteria (interface plan, data sharing). 

Q: What are the specific requirements for the Year 5 collaborative demonstration project, and how will applicants identify a collaboration partner if SenNet DVC members are not known at the time of application?
A: SenTecs will set aside set aside approximately 10% of their UH3 Year 5 budget for a collaborative demonstration project using the technology developed in the SenTec. Even though at the time of application, SenTecs will not know the DVC composition of SenNet Phase 2 or who the future collaborative demonstration partner will be the collaborative project in Year 5 will supported by membership in SenNet.  SenTecs are therefore strongly encouraged to actively participate in consortium-wide meetings and activities early in the SenNet program to familiarize themselves with ongoing research conducted by other members, which will facilitate identifying a suitable demonstration project partner 

• The demonstration project must be conducted in collaboration with another group within or outside of the consortium 
• A proposal for the demonstration project must be formulated and finalized by the middle of Year 4 for administrative review and approval by NIH Staff 

Q: Is a lean single-lab model competitive, or does NIH expect built-in collaborators?  
A: These can be complicated projects. You need to demonstrate that the goals/aims can be met in the time period. The NOFO expects strong collaborations within the consortia. You need to be able to justify project 

Q: What are the data sharing and intellectual property (IP) requirements under this NOFO, and how should applicants address potential conflicts between IP protection and open data sharing? 
A: There are specific and detailed requirements regarding both data sharing and intellectual property: 

Data Sharing Requirements: 

• All applicants regardless of direct costs must submit a Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan 
• Data, software, and models must be shared in an easily accessible format with the scientific community 
• Approved projects must agree to Consortium policies for rapid sharing of products within the Consortium and with the external research community through the SenNet Program Portal 
• Data generated through inter-SenNet collaborations must be deposited in the SenNet Data Portal in a timely manner 
• NIH Program Staff may negotiate modifications to Data Management and Sharing Plans prior to funding 

 Intellectual Property (IP) Requirements: 

• All applications must include an Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy as a separate attachment (maximum 3 pages), labeled "Intellectual Property Strategy.pdf" 
• Even if IP issues are not applicable, applicants must include the attachment and explain why IP is not a consideration 

The IP Strategy must describe: 

• The IP landscape surrounding the model system 
• Any known constraints that could impede technology sharing 
• Future IP filing plan 
• For multiple-PD/PI applications, how IP will be coordinated among institutions 

Q: Is there a list of high-priority unmet needs in senescence research for SenTecs applicants, such as senescent cell heterogeneity?
A: No high-priority list is available. Applicants should explain the connection to senescence biology and the challenges addressed by the proposed technology.

Q: Are optical imaging technologies largely limited to skin for in vivo translational applications, or can they be applied to other tissues and organs?
A: Please email program staff with details of the optical imaging technology, intended tissues or organs, and proposed translational application so that your question can be addressed in context.

Q: For new SenTecs applicants who are not currently part of SenNet, must collaborations with other SenNet components be established or specified in the application?
A: Describe detailed plans for communicating and working with DVCs, the DCIC, SenTecs teams, and the outside community. Pre-existing collaborations are neither necessary nor expected.

Q: For the SenTecs collaborative demonstration project, must a SenNet partner be identified in the grant proposal, or will the consortium provide guidance on an appropriate collaborative group after funding?
A: No specific partner needs to be identified. Collaborative activities should demonstrate intention and willingness to collaborate and the types of questions that can be addressed.

Q: If a model is locked at the end of UG3, how should adaptation to additional tissues during UH3 be handled while preserving independent validation? Is further fine-tuning allowed during UH3?
A: Please email program staff with details of the proposed model adaptation or fine-tuning and how you would preserve independent validation.

Q: Will SenNet provide reference datasets, annotations, or common evaluation standards for AI tools, and when will they be available? How should applicants plan external benchmarking before those resources or partnerships are established?
A: An effort in Stage 1 is generating AI-ready datasets, and SenNet data are publicly accessible. All available datasets in different formats can be found on the portal. Email program staff with specific questions about the resources needed for your project.

Q: Is there a minimum PI effort requirement for SenTecs UG3/UH3 applications?
A: The NOFO does not require a specific level of PI effort, but significant PI effort is needed to support the proposed work, particularly during the two-year UG3 phase. Consult the NOFO and contact program staff with questions about the appropriate effort for your project.

Q: Must a center show depth in all four scientific priorities, or is strength in two enough?
A: The Scored Review Criteria state an application "does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact." The NOFO-specific Significance criteria ask whether "individual project components significantly contribute" and whether the balance is appropriate. So uniform depth isn't strictly required, but each DVC must still address all four priorities and cover ≥2 diseased tissues and ≥2 core assays. How reviewers will weigh criteria and justification and state of science and specific challenges in execution.  

Q: Is there a preferred assay diversity, and how is the deep-biology-vs-resource balance scored?
A: Priority 3 requires "at least two core assays" (examples: multiplexed immunoassays, single-cell/spatial multi-omics, high-spatial-resolution sequencing/microscopy/MS). No specific preferred pairing. The deep-biology-vs-resource balance is an explicit scored criteria under both Significance and Approach ("Is the balance... appropriate?"). Details need to be scientifically justified based on the project specifics. 

Q: How much functional/mechanistic work before it becomes non-responsive?
A: Applications that "focus primarily on pursuing a biological mechanism through basic research without generating or validating biomarkers and senotypes, " are non-responsive. Discriminating beneficial vs. detrimental SnCs is an in-scope Priority 1 aim.  

Q: Where's the scientific center of mass — Element B or Element C?
A: Roughly equal effort unless a different balance makes scientific sense and is appropriately justified.  

Q: How should ~$3M/yr be apportioned across two tissues and two assays — balanced or lead/secondary?
A: Completely up to the applicant’s specific aims and goals of the proposal and how the balance is justified for the community needs. No tissue-balance requirement is stated.  

Q: What total senior effort does NIH view as the floor?
A: PD(s)/PI(s): minimum 2.4 calendar months (MPI combined ≥2.4, with ≥1 PI at ≥1.2). Element Leaders: minimum 1.5 calendar months per Element (Leader/Co-Leader combined ≥1.5, designated Leader ≥1.0). PD/PI effort cannot double-count toward an Element Leader requirement. 

Q: How is "program balance" across tissues weighted, and can I learn which tissues are crowded before submitting?
A: "Program balance" (need for multiple tissues, pathologies, conditions, diseases, and perspectives) is explicitly listed among funding-decision factors after peer review. It depends on the balance of competitive applications received. 

Q: How restrictive is a consent plan before it's disqualifying vs. a scoring deduction?
A: Partially answered. The NOFO "strongly encourages" broad/unrestricted consent and states "restrictive consent plans will be evaluated as a negative feature during peer review."The balance of suitability and restriction should be scientifically justified for peer review. 

Q: Does Element D (SOOC) count against the 30-page limit, and is the 1-page Specific Aims outside it?
A: The 30-page cap is the sum of Elements A (5) + B (10) + C (10) + D (5) = 30, so Element D is inside the 30 pages. Specific Aims is a separate 1-page limit, outside the Research Strategy 30-page cap. 

Q: How does NIH handle a DVC penalized for DCIC-side delays on the two annual milestones?
A: The DVC will not be penalized for DCIC specific delays in evaluating progress reports. However, it is incumbent upon all awardees to work together to make the entire effort successful. It is expected that the awardees will identify creative solutions for addressing anticipated challenges specific to their aims/goals.  

Q: For a multi-institution DVC proposal, should all institutions provide a letter of support demonstrating organizational commitment, or only the submitting organization?
A: Each institution with a participating PI should provide a letter demonstrating organizational commitment, including the submitting institution and the participating institutions.

Q: Is the $600,000 annual SOOC allocation included in the $3 million annual DVC budget, or should it be separate in the application?
A: The $600,000 SOOC allocation is included in the $3 million DVC/DCIC direct-cost budget, leaving $2.4 million in direct costs for the other components. Each component requires its own budget.

Q: Is the SOOC reviewed separately from the other DVC elements or together with them?
A: The full and complete application will be reviewed.

Q: Must each DVC applicant propose a SOOC component to organize activities for the entire consortium, even though only one organization will receive SOOC funding? Should other DVCs budget for participation in consortium activities?
A: DVC and DCIC applicants must propose a SOOC component to coordinate activities for the entire consortium. Only one SOOC will be selected for funding. The SOOC components of other awardees will not be funded. SenTech applicants are not required to propose this component.

Outside the SOOC, each awardee is expected to collaborate, participate in consortium working groups, submit data and metadata to the DCIC, and engage in other scientific activities. These activities require personnel and budgets.

Q: Can established collaborations with other TMCs that may become DVCs be included in the budget to avoid issues with indirect costs?
A: SenNet Stage 2 applications and their goals and aims differ from those of Stage 1. The Stage 2 awardees are unlikely to be the same as those in Stage 1. Please clarify which established collaborations you intend to include in the budget.

Q: For the two-tissue criterion, is preference given to tissues with an interconnected biological process, such as a primary tumor and metastasis to a lymph node, or may applicants propose two unrelated tissue types?
A: The NOFO does not impose that restriction. Applicants should propose a biologically meaningful approach that advances senescence biology while considering scientific and practical factors.

Q: For the two-diseased-tissues requirement, must the tissues represent the same disease in two organs, or may applicants study distinct diseases in different organs or a primary diseased organ and a secondarily affected organ?
A: Different combinations may be allowable, including two different tissues or two diseases affecting the same tissue. Confirm with program staff that your proposed combination satisfies the specific NOFO requirement.

Q: How many tissues can be proposed?
A: The DVC NOFO specifies two required tissues.

Q: Can a given tissue be funded through multiple DVC awards, or only one award or team?
A: A definitive rule on funding the same tissue through multiple DVC awards has not been established in the available guidance. Funding decisions will consider programmatic balance as described in the NOFO.

Q: Are subcutaneous adipose tissue and visceral adipose tissue considered separate organs?
A: Subcutaneous adipose tissue and visceral adipose tissue are considered distinct tissue types.

Q: Are there preferred diseases for DVC studies, such as diseases associated with aging? Is therapy-induced senescence, including radiation- or chemotherapy-induced senescence, within scope?
A: Studies of senescence during cancer progression or cancer treatment, including chemotherapy, may be within scope. Identify the cancer type and tissue context and explain the senescence question being addressed.

Q: Is cancer an allowable tissue or disease context?
A: Cancer studies may be within scope when framed within a specific tissue and senescence context. Identify the cancer type and explain how the study addresses senescence during cancer progression or treatment.

Q: Are DVCs required to propose integrative analysis of data produced by multiple TMCs during Phase 1?
A: No. Analysis of Stage 1 data is not required. Applicants may propose such analysis if it supports their application’s goals or aims.

Q: What is the difference between DVC Elements B and C?
A: Element B focuses primarily on preclinical modeling, phenotype discovery, validation strategies, and data analysis. Element C focuses primarily on biospecimen management, high-resolution assays, and data analysis. Data acquisition may occur in both elements, while high-resolution mapping is primarily associated with Element C. Follow the detailed responsibilities described in the NOFO and contact program staff with questions about a specific activity.

Q: Are high-resolution assays and two- or three-dimensional mapping primarily associated with Element C? How should data acquisition and analysis be distributed across DVC Elements B and C?
A: Data acquisition and analysis may occur in both Elements B and C. Element B focuses primarily on preclinical modeling, phenotype discovery, and validation strategies. Element C focuses primarily on biospecimen management and high-resolution assays, and high-resolution mapping is primarily associated with Element C. Follow the detailed responsibilities described in the NOFO and contact program staff with questions about a specific activity.

Q: What is considered a core assay?
A: Core assays refer to profiling human tissue samples at the single-cell level. Preclinical model studies are expected to address deeper functional biology. Single-cell methods may also be used in those studies, but the work is expected to extend beyond single-cell profiling alone.

Q: How is high throughput defined, particularly for three-dimensional assays?
A: Consult the applicable NOFO for the requirements concerning high-throughput assays and request clarification from program staff if the requirements for your proposed three-dimensional assay remain unclear.

Q: If Stage 1 laboratories receive Stage 2 awards, are they expected to continue data generation and submission without interruption, or is a gap anticipated?
A: Stage 2 has different goals from Stage 1. Please clarify the proposed continuation of data generation and submission with program staff.

Q: Only one DCIC is funded — is there value in applying if not confident?
A: If you do not have experience being a DCIC-type awardee within large consortia in the past, it would be challenging to submit a responsive application. However, NIH encourages, expects and hopes that multiple competitive applications will be submitted. There is no preferential treatment to existing Stage 1 awardee.  

Q: Must the DCIC be a new team, or is continuity with the Stage 1 operator favored?
A: No. NIH is looking for competitive applications, and no preference exists for Stage 1 DCIC. However, all applicants should incorporate a strategy and timeline to maintain and transition the existing Stage 1 portal (data.sennetconsortium.org) for "uninterrupted community access," which implies either continuity or a managed handoff. Stage 1 DCIC applicant is similarly expected to describe how they propose to handoff to any Stage 2 new awardee.  

Q: Build for anticipated assay types or assay-agnostic infrastructure?
A: Priority 1 lists specific anticipated data types (spatial proteomics, spatially resolved transcriptomics, high-res lipid/metabolite imaging) AND requires "flexible, robust" pipelines plus handling of "non-consensus"/one-off or emerging assays (Element C). So the NOFO asks for both: concrete pipelines for known assay classes and flexibility for the unknown. Refer to existing Stage 1 assays and currently technology development landscape to plan appropriately. 

Q: Balance of effort — maintaining/transitioning Stage 1 vs. building new integration methods?
A: This is not an “or”, it is an “and”. We do not anticipate just transitioning to be that onerous compared to new methods for enabling scientific access to datasets in an integrated manner. Element B covers both Stage 1 continuity and Stage 1↔Stage 2 integration. No explicit effort split is given. The aims and appropriate effort should be scientifically justified. 

Q: How much wet-lab senescence expertise must be embedded vs. informatics depth?
A: The NOFO repeatedly stresses "deep domain expertise in cellular senescence biology, preclinical validation, and high-throughput spatial assays," and Element A's Vision criterion asks applicants to "demonstrate domain expertise in senescence biology." So biological expertise is clearly expected on a data center team. There is no specific expectations. Again, do justify your choices scientifically in the application for peer review to evaluate.  

Q: How should controlled-access data handling be resourced vs. the public portal/tools?
A: Element C requires strict segregation of open- vs. controlled-access data, secure processing of GDS-governed and EHR-derived data, submission to an NIH-designated CADR (e.g., dbGaP) while maintaining provenance, and expedited pre-publication access for approved consortium pilots. These are mandatory capabilities.   Budget/effort proportion should be scientifically justified.  

Q: Preferred CADR beyond dbGaP, and who bears submission cost/responsibility?
A: dbGaP is named as an example CADR, and the DCIC "is responsible for... submitting it to an appropriate NIH-designated Controlled Access Data Repository." So responsibility sits with the DCIC. The DCIC is not expected to setup its own CADR.  

Q: In regards to the recent NOFOs released from NIH-SenNet, whom shall I contact re:  Allowable Extensions? Proposed MPI is serving as an NIH study section reviewer 12/3However, I want to make sure that if an Extension is granted — that our award is not reviewed by a SEP.
A: The RFA-RM-27-016 Cellular Senescence Network (SenNet): Discovery, Validation Centers (UM1 Clinical Trials Not Allowed) will expire on November 24, 2026, and extensions won’t be allowable. These applications will be reviewed together March 2027 by a CSR study section set up exclusively for this purpose. A technical assistance webinar will be held on Monday October 19, 2026, at 3:00PM ET. 

Q: The SenNet Phase 2 DCIC NOFO specifies a maximum Research Strategy length of 30 pages, with individual section limits of 5, 10, 10, and 5 pages. Does the 12-page limit mentioned during the webinar apply to the DCIC application or to a different SenNet funding opportunity?
A: Follow the published NOFO for the applicable mechanism and component. The 12-page clarification applies to SenTech UG3/UH3 applications and should not be applied universally to UM1 components.

Q: For the DCIC, is the 10% cross-consortium validation set-aside in Years 2–5 calculated from the total costs—direct plus indirect—of the non-SOOC portion of the award, since this requirement appears under the main budget instructions rather than the SOOC instructions?
A: Yes. The 10% set-aside for Years 2–5 is calculated from the direct and indirect costs of the non-SOOC portion. Follow the corresponding budget instructions in the DCIC NOFO.

Q: What does “cross-consortium validation” (10% set-aside) mean with regard to the DCIC?
A: The DCIC may propose new scientific work, such as developing novel algorithms or visualization tools, that requires validation or collaboration with a specific DVC or SenTech awardee. Other activities may also be appropriate.

Q: How does the DCIC’s approximately 10% cross-consortium validation set-aside, beginning in Year 2, differ from its routine coordination and data integration responsibilities? What additional work is intended by “newly developed visualization and other cross-consortium analytical goals”?
A: During Phase 2, individual DVCs will develop new visualizations and pursue additional cross-consortium analytical goals. The set-aside supports collaborative benchmarking and validation of these developments across DVCs to assess their generalizability.

Q: In Section IV under “Other Plan(s)”, will the information on consortium compliance, DCIC submission, human subjects data, and community feedback be their own separate attachments or should these sections be included in the Data Management and Sharing Plan? 
A: Some of this information is not covered in the NIH DMS Plan Format Page and will need to be addressed separately.