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
What is the program? It was not clearly stated. One can look at the diagrams and still not follow exactly
what the program is. There are too many disparate programs listed, but which is it that will be pursued?
Alternatively, there could be more effective delivery by consolidation.
Reviewer: 2 Criteria Score: 4
Project has just started and has good targets/ goal schedule. Most data presented were based on a single
diatom; screening of new strains (500) be fruitful--- but what are they? What are their tolerances? How
much lipid do they produce? These aspects might be considered in future, given that the project is just
starting.
The productivity target may be unrealistic; productivity values that were presented were extrapolated to a
large scale from a small experiment without any of the negative factors of large scale considered or
explicitly identified (e.g., competitors, pathogens). Similarly, amino acid contents of several "novel"
strains were presented by number alone (not algal group) and look as if they supply reasonable required
amino acids but without control data from a terrestrial protein source or fish etc. were hard to evaluate.
The project is promising due to integration at the Kona facility of all aspects (large scale growth to
facilities for processing and biofuel separation).
Reviewer: 3 Criteria Score: 6
The focal point of Cellana is to develop new strains of microalgae with high productivity, demonstrate
sustainable production of biomass and bio-product, efficient harvesting, all based on pilot-scale, and to
further demonstrate end-to-end process integration. However, there are concerns regarding the proposed
approaches by Cellana: 1- Random mutagenesis to generate and isolate strains with enhanced lipid
production would not work. It is the wrong biological approach, the reason being that mutagenesis tends
to eliminate single enzymatic steps or processes but it is not designed to induce enhanced generation of a
specific biosynthetic pathway and accumulation of product. Moreover, chemical, UV or similar
mutagenesis would introduce, with certainty, multiple (dozens or hundreds) of mutations that invariably
lower fitness of the organism, resulting in lower overall growth and productivity. 2- Reference was made
to algal "husbandry" by which to improve microalgal productivity. Aside from the bad choice of term,
husbandry entails genetic crosses, something that is not known to occur in microalgae. Cellana ought to
seek help with their proposed approaches to avoid going down the wrong path(s) in their otherwise
valuable effort.
Reviewer: 4 Criteria Score: 3
See Overall Impression text.
Reviewer: 5 Criteria Score: 4
Among a number of objectives, the most important is to be able to test and validate different culture and
harvesting operations at production scale. Many of the approaches (such as strain selection, optimizing
culture conditions, and harvesting/dewatering) seemed very conventional and unlikely to yield significant
improvements in yield.
Reviewer: 6 Criteria Score: 4
Although the basic concept is reasonable - intensive innoculum development followed by deployment
Page 20 of 223