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.
The project performers have identified a project management plan that includes well-defined milestones
and adequate methods for addressing potential risks.
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1 Criteria Score: 4
The Approach has several aspects. Basically the investigators are intent on establishing reliable, analytical
methodology to determine full lipid composition profiles in timely fashion (one hopes) to replace the
qualitative nile red stain test. Now if that could be done it would be a useful contribution, especially if it
were a short, inexpensive, low manpower analytical method. There probably needs to be a diversity of
samples run through to determine the variations. Good enough. It is when the project direction indicates a
prediction is to be made on the best choices of algae that I believe the approach goes astray. How do we
decide good, better, best? There is a claim to evaluate 2000 strains of algae. Is this logical or desirable?
First, some of this must already be done. Second, is a scientific selection a better approach?
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 5
The approach is to isolate new strains of algae that might be useful as feedstock; this goal is being met by
isolation of 3000 "strains" from extensive collecting, including in Utah, of freshwater, brackish and
marine strains. Analytical methods such as MS, LC are being used to define lipid concentration, which
the PI considers important compared to Nile red staining. It was unclear that the collecting effort was
focussed on scientific questions related to habitat that might result in the highest possibility of useful
novel strains with high lipid accumulation. I do think some collecting of new strains from some habitats is
likely to be fruitful to commercialization, because this may eliminate the need to pursue GMO strategies
for high lipid production. However, Martek etc. have many good lipid producers; will there be any
comparisons with the "best of show" to date?
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 4
For strains sampled from the general environment such as these, lipid content and lipid characteristics are
likely a weak indicator that the strains are suitable for mass cultivation. 200 strains have been
characterized; now focus on determining whether any of the leading candidates can be grown outdoors.
That experience will help in the planning of any further screening. The delivery of the strains to NAABB
or others with outdoor facilities should be done quickly with the outdoor results feeding back to the
Brooklyn College strain work with as quick a turn around as possible.
The catalyst research cannot be evaluated with the small amount of information provided.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4
Since the presentation only focused on the strain screening project, this review only covers that section of
the project. The stated objective is high throughput screening for lipid producing strains and
characterization of lipids. However, in light of the failure of previous algal screening efforts in yielding
strains that successfully compete in full-scale outdoor raceways, there was no justification regarding why
this particular effort would be more successful. The main purpose of the project was for capacity building
for the college (purchase of equipment, hiring of personnel, training of students).
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 4
What is the relevance to just screening strains? There are several sites that do this, for example UTEX.
Why is this needed over existing collections?
Reviewer: 7 Criteria Score: 5
Validation of the screening system is needed.
Page 186 of 223