Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Generation and validation of a universal perinatal database and biospecimen repository: PeriBank



There is a dearth of biospecimen repositories available to perinatal researchers. In order to address this need, here we describe the methodology used to establish such a resource.

Study Design:

With the collaboration of, we generated an online perinatal database with 847 fields of clinical information. Simultaneously, we established a biospecimen repository of the same clinical participants.


The demographic and clinical outcomes data are described for the first 10 000 participants enrolled. The demographic characteristics are consistent with the demographics of the delivery hospitals. Quality analysis of the biospecimens reveals variation in very few analytes. Furthermore, since the creation of PeriBank, we have demonstrated validity of the database and tissue integrity of the biospecimen repository.


Here we establish that the creation of a universal perinatal database and biospecimen collection is not only possible, but allows for the performance of state-of-the-science translational perinatal research and is a potentially valuable resource to academic perinatal researchers.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2


  1. Park A . 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: #8 Biobanks. Time. 2009; 63. Available at,28804,1884779_1884782_1884766,00.html.

  2. Gaskell G, Gottweis H . Biobanks need publicity. Nature 2011; 471 (7337): 159–160.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McCarty CA, Wilke RA, Giampietro PF, Wesbrook SD, Caldwell MD . Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP): design, methods and recruitment for a large population-based biobank. Per Med 2005; 2 (1): 49–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roden DM, Pulley JM, Basford MA, Bernard GR, Clayton EW, Balser JR et al. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84 (3): 362–369.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Scott CT, Caulfield T, Borgelt E, Illes J . Personal medicine — the new banking crisis. Nat Biotechnol 2012; 30 (2): 141–147.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. MacLeod AK, Liewald DCM, McGilchrist MM, Morris AD, Kerr SM, Porteous DJ . Some principles and practices of genetic biobanking studies. Eur Respir J 2009; 33 (2): 419–425.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ollier W, Sprosen T, Peakman T . UK Biobank: from concept to reality. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6 (6): 639–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Olson JE, Ryu E, Johnson KJ, Koenig BA, Maschke KJ, Morrisette JA et al. The Mayo Clinic Biobank: a building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clin Proc 2013; 88 (9): 952–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rønningen KS, Paltiel L, Meltzer HM, Nordhagen R, Lie KK, Hovengen R et al. The biobank of the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study: a resource for the next 100 years. Eur J Epidemiol 2006; 21 (8): 619–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Magnus P, Irgens LM, Haug K, Nystad W, Skjaerven R, Stoltenberg C et al. Cohort profile: the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35 (5): 1146–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Granfors M, Åkerud H, Skogö J, Stridsberg M, Wikström A-K, Sundström-Poromaa I . Targeted thyroid testing during pregnancy in clinical practice. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (1): 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. National Institute for Health and Welfare. Parturients, deliveries and births. Available at: (accessed on 9 November 2015).

  13. Langhoff-Roos J, Krebs L, Klungsøyr K, Bjarnadottir RI, Källén K, Tapper AM et al. The Nordic medical birth registers - a potential goldmine for clinical research. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93 (2): 132–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Directorate of Health. The Directorate of Health. 2015. Available at: (accessed on 9 November 2015).

  15. Mortensen LM, Bech BH, Nohr EA, Kruhøffer M, Kjærgaard S, Uldbjerg N et al. Data resource profile: the Aarhus Birth Cohort Biobank (ABC Biobank). Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42 (6): 1697–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Olsen J, Melbye M, Olsen SF, Sørensen TIA, Aaby P, Andersen A-MNM et al. The Danish National Birth Cohort—its background, structure and aim. Scand J Public Health 2001; 29 (4): 300–307.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bisgaard H, Vissing NH, Carson CG, Bischoff AL, Følsgaard NV, Kreiner-Møller E et al. Deep phenotyping of the unselected COPSAC 2010 birth cohort study. Clin Exp Allergy 2013; 43 (12): 1384–1394.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Statens Serum Institute. Available at, 1973.

  19. Hofman A, Jaddoe VWV, Mackenbach JP, Moll Ha, Snijders RFM, Steegers EaP et al. Growth, development and health from early fetal life until young adulthood: the Generation R Study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2004; 18 (1): 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaddoe VWV, Mackenbach JP, Moll Ha, Steegers EAP, Tiemeier H, Verhulst FC et al. The Generation R Study: design and cohort profile. Eur J Epidemiol 2006; 21 (6): 475–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaddoe VWV, Bakker R, van Duijn CM, van der Heijden AJ, Lindemans J, Mackenbach JP et al. The Generation R Study Biobank: a resource for epidemiological studies in children and their parents. Eur J Epidemiol 2007; 22 (12): 917–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kruithof CJ, Kooijman MN, van Duijn CM, Franco OH, de Jongste JC, Klaver CC et al. The Generation R Study: Biobank update. Eur J Epidemiol 2015; 29 (12):911–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ebner A, Thyrian JR, Lange A, Lingnau M-L, Scheler-Hofmann M, Rosskopf D et al. Survey of Neonates in Pomerania (SNiP): a population-based birth study–objectives, design and population coverage. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2010; 24 (2): 190–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Golding J, Pembrey M, Jones R ALSPAC Study Team. ALSPAC–the Avon Longitudinal Study of parents and children. I. Study methodology. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001; 15 (1): 74–87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. University College London, St Mary’s Hospital at Imperial College London. Baby Biobank at Institute of Child Health. Available at: c.1999-2013 (accessed on 16 September 2014).

  26. O’Donovan SM, Murray DM, Hourihane JO, Kenny LC, Irvine AD, Kiely M . Cohort profile: the Cork BASELINE Birth Cohort Study: Babies after SCOPE: evaluating the Longitudinal Impact on Neurological and Nutritional Endpoints. Int J Epidemiol 2014; 44 (3): 764–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maastricht, NewGeneris. NewGeneris Cohorts and Biobanks. Available at: (accessed on 16 September 2014).

  28. Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z, Baker PN, Gluud C, Grüttner B, Kublickiene K et al. A multi-centre phase IIa clinical study of predictive testing for preeclampsia: improved pregnancy outcomes via early detection (IMPROvED). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13: 226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Walker MC, Finkelstein Sa, Rennicks White R, Shachkina S, Smith GN, Wen SW et al. The Ottawa and Kingston (OaK) Birth Cohort: development and achievements. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33: 1124–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. The Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute. BIOBANK: Research Centre for Women’s and Infants’ Health. 1997. Available at: (accessed on 9 November 2015).

  31. Joly M-P, Boivin M, Junker A, Bocking A, Kramer MS, Atkinson SA . An inventory of Canadian pregnancy and birth cohort studies: research in progress. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12 (1): 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaplan BJ, Giesbrecht GF, Leung BMY, Field CJ, Dewey D, Bell RC et al. The Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) cohort study: rationale and methods. Matern Child Nutr 2014; 10 (1): 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moraes TJ, Lefebvre DL, Chooniedass R, Becker AB, Brook JR, Denburg J et al. The Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development Birth Cohort Study: biological samples and biobanking. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2015; 29 (1): 84–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Arbuckle TE, Fraser WD, Fisher M, Davis K, Liang CL, Lupien N et al. Cohort profile: the maternal-infant research on environmental chemicals research platform. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013; 27 (4): 415–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Richter L, Norris S, Pettifor J, Yach D, Cameron N . Cohort profile: Mandela’s children: the 1990 Birth to Twenty study in South Africa. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36 (3): 504–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Auckland University. Screening for Pregnancy Endpoints (SCOPE) Study Available at: (accessed on 16 September 2014).

  37. Birth 2011. Available at: (accessed on 9 November 2015).

  38. Tierney K, Delpachitra P, Grossmann M, Onwude J, Sikaris K, Wallace EM et al. Thyroid function and autoantibody status among women who spontaneously deliver under 35 weeks of gestation. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2009; 71: 892–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kvehaugen AS, Andersen LF, Staff AC . Anthropometry and cardiovascular risk factors in women and offspring after pregnancies complicated by preeclampsia or diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89 (11): 1478–1485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wei SQ, Audibert F, Hidiroglou N, Sarafin K, Julien P, Wu Y et al. Longitudinal vitamin D status in pregnancy and the risk of pre-eclampsia. BJOG 2012; 119 (7): 832–839.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Santillan MK, Leslie KK, Hamilton WS, Boese BJ, Ahuja M, Hunter SK et al Collection of a lifetime: a practical approach to developing a longitudinal collection of women’s healthcare biological samples. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 179: 94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Brandt KS . Banking Biology. Med Midw Univ Chicago Biol Sci Div. 2007; Fall:21. Available at:

  43. Joseph JW, Neidich AB, Ober C, Ross LF . Empirical data about women’s attitudes toward a biobank focused on pregnancy outcomes. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146(A) (3): 305–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth. GAPPS Repository: Biobank of Pregnancy and Newborn Specimens and Data. An Initiative of Seattle Children’s. 2008. Available at: (accessed on 16 September 2014).

  45. Stokes AJ, Astern J . University of Hawai’i Biorepository - John A. Burns School of Medicine - University of Hawaii. Available at: (accessed on 10 November 2015).

  46. Lambertini L . The Mount Sinai School of Medicine (MSSM) Pregnancy Biobank. 2010. p. 1–8. Available at: Care/Children/Childrens Environmental Health Center/14. Lambertini.pdf.

  47. Indiana CTSI. The Building Blocks of Pregnancy Biobank: a biorepository of specimens and pregnancy outcomes. 2012. Available at: (accessed on 9 November 2015).

  48. Washington University School of Medicine in St.Louis. Women and Infant Health Specimen Consortium. Available at: (accessed on 16 September 2014).

  49. U.S. National Institutes of Health. Available at: (accessed on 9 November 2015).

  50. Brisson AR, Matsui D, Rieder MJ, Fraser DD . Translational research in pediatrics: tissue sampling and biobanking. Pediatrics 2012; 129 (1): 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Golding J . The case for a coordinating centre for birth cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009; 23 (suppl.1): 226–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Golding J, Jones R, Bruné MN, Pronczuk J . Why carry out a longitudinal birth survey? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009; 23 (suppl.1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Aagaard K, Ma J, Antony KM, Ganu R, Petrosino J, Versalovic J . The placenta harbors a unique microbiome. Sci Transl Med 2014; 6 (237): 237ra–265r.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Antony KM, Ma J, Mitchell KB, Racusin DA, Versalovic J, Aagaard K . The preterm placental microbiome varies in association with excess maternal gestational weight gain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (5) 653 e1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Suter M, Sachs MK, Hu M, Antony KM, Arndt M, Aagaard KM . Increasing maternal obesity is associated with alterations in both maternal and neonatal thyroid hormone levels. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2016; 84 (4): 551–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 137: Gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (2 Pt 1): 406–416.

    Google Scholar 

  57. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Hypertension in Pregnancy. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Washington DC, USA 2013; pp 1–100.

  58. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJK, Kirmeyer S et al. National vital statistics reports births: final data for 2009. 2011; 60 (1): 1–70.

  59. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K . Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health 2009; 99 (12): 2128–2134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Végvári A, Welinder C, Lindberg H, Fehniger TE, Marko-Varga G . Biobank resources for future patient care: developments, principles and concepts. J Clin Bioinforma 2011; 1 (1): 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to acknowledge Texas Children’s Hospital and Ben Taub Hospital for their support of this project. We would also like to acknowledge Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology for funding this perinatal database and biospecimen repository. The financial support for the study is provided by Baylor College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (internal funding only).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to K Aagaard.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Perinatology website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antony, K., Hemarajata, P., Chen, J. et al. Generation and validation of a universal perinatal database and biospecimen repository: PeriBank. J Perinatol 36, 921–929 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links