Reviewer Comments - EERE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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. organism for biodiesel production. Bioresource Technology 101: 2059-2062 Siaut et al., BMC Biotechnol. 11:7(2011). PMID: 21255402 5. Technology Transfer and Collaborations Please comment on the degree to which the project adequately interfaces and coordinates with other institutions and projects to provide additional benefits to the Biomass Program, such as publications, awards, or others. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 I see little evidence that this is an integrated project, nor did it seem this was a large concern for the investigator. Reviewer: 2 The project is in its early stages. Reviewer: 3 Transformation of non-Chlamydomonas species Reviewer: 4 See Overall Impressions text. Reviewer: 5 Potential for technology transfer to producers is extremely unlikely. Reviewer: 6 No comment. Reviewer: 7 Plan for tech transfer needs to be developed. Presenter Response Reviewer 1: We ask DOE management to disregard this very unspecific comment that the PI “seemed not to be concerned” about project integration. With regards to what was asked of the reviewers to comment about: our project was about 1/2 year old when it was reviewed by this panel. There was no chance to get any collaborations or co-publications going within that time. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 I appreciate the science that is incorporated in the project. However, this should be work focused on the problem of optimized algal biofuel production. The investigators appear to want to do their project Page 133 of 223
Page 1 and 2:
2011 Biomass Program Algae Platform
Page 3 and 4:
2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 131: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223:
show all

Reviewer Comments - EERE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?