Reviewer Comments - EERE

2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s
Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program.
end-use)
iv. Environmental sustainability (example: water use, GMOs, energy consumption)
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 1
These were not enumerated.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5
Demonstration of the application of the work proposed to practical algal biofuels' production is important.
In the future, please report oil concentrations of algae on the basis of algal dry mass, as part of
presentations (again, important for effective tech transfer) and consider expanding studies to other algae.
The transformation studies on Chlamydomonas may not be easily transferable to other organisms.
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 8
PI predicts that 13C-Metabolic Flux Analysis might not work well with the two-carbon source acetate. To
allow Chlamydomonas to grow on glucose, he will transform it with a glucose transporter. While analysis
is performed with algae growing on acetate, the results of the analysis are to be applied to algae growing
autotrophically (on atmospheric CO2). Manipulation of the targets revealed by analysis therefore might
be less relevant for autotrophically grown alga. This issue can be theoretically explored by the use of Flux
Balance Analysis. Chlamydomonas might not be the most suitable species for mass oil production. A
succesful engineering approach might have to be applied to another algal strain like Chlorella or
Nannochloropsis.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 5
See Overall Impressions text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 3
This project is unlikely to have a near-term significant impact since Chlamy is not a relevant organism.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 1
"If we are successful, Chlamydomonas might not be the most suitable species for mass oil production."
How is success defined by identifying a strain as not being the most suitable - ignoring the fact this is not
an industrial strain anyway.
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 4
Applying learnings to potential commerical systems is critical.
Presenter Response
Reviewer1: We disagree. We enumerated critical success factors on slide 18. Reviewer 5: “Chlamy is not
a relevant organism”: We disagree. See Algal biofuels roadmap, p. 10, under “Selecting Algal Model
Systems for Study”. This paragraph makes clear that algal model species are not out of the question.
Reviewer 6: asks “How is success defined by identifying a strain as not being the most suitable - ignoring
the fact this is not an industrial strain anyway”. We disagree. Again, the algal biofuels roadmap does not
exclude the use of model species. It says e.g. on p. 10 “Species with sequenced genomes and transgenic
capabilities are the most amenable to investigating cellular processes since the basic tools are in place.” –
this clearly refers to our project.
please consider also Morowvata MH, Rasoul-Aminia S, Ghasemi Y (2010) Chlamydomonas as a “new”
Page 132 of 223