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. Reviewer: 7 It was not clear how resutls would be shared or how any potential commercial opportunity would be evaluated. Presenter Response I would like to see this developed in greater detail. There is no doubt that publications will be forthcoming. Response: In addition to publications and presentations, the research will develop our understanding of the fundamental biological control processes over lipid and biomass accumulation. Given the fundamental need for this in the context of a production system, it is likely to benefit other aspects of the Biomass Program research. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Continued publication and presentations and interactions with more applied groups in the Biofuels' portfolio is important to transfer scientific advances made here into practical advances toward biofuel goals. Response: Agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Future work will be to test the effect of manipulation of specific genes on TAG accumulation. If successful, the technology of these modifications can be transferred to production systems. No response. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Overall Impressions text. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology transfer will be primarily publications and presentations. Response: Initially yes, but if better performing strains are produced then material for testing in large scale systems will be available. ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is mostly a single PI project. The partner identified (Dr. Allen) is fine. However, there is no real issue here, given the projects objectives and capacity of the PI. No response. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was not clear how resutls would be shared and any potential commercial opportunity would be evaluated. Response: Results would be shared via publications and presentations, and if future funding was available, or if a commercial partner became interested, large scale testing could be pursued. 6. Overall Impressions Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project approach, scope, and any other overall comments. Page 64 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. Reviewer Comments Reviewer: 1 As a project generating science, I like this work. It may even be a supporting project for the OBP efforts. However, it would be better to spell these expectations out to make the case. Perhaps this would have been better funded totally by NSF? Reviewer: 2 Collaboration with Venter Institute a plus. This project is making excellent progress in the area of understanding the lipidome of diatoms and providing tools and metabolic data to manipulate it. Reviewer: 3 PI is well-versed in the art of cell and molecular biology of Thalassiosira and Cyclotella. Useful results will emanate from this work. The only caution is that changes in transcript mRNA level often are not reflected in changes in protein amount or activity. How is the PI planning to account / check for the possibility that transcriptomics are not always the best approach to assess flux and metabolomics?? Reviewer: 4 Overall Impression: 10 A model presentation of theory, hypotheses, and data. The team has significant accomplishments at 13 months into the contract, while using among the most modest budgets of all projects reviewed. The means to provide affordable silica to diatom production is practical issue to address if they are to be used in biofuel production. Reviewer: 5 Within the area of fundamental research for algal biofuels, this is a very good project and was well presented. Reviewer: 6 This work is high level academic work, with the ever constant promise that the work will support the commercial effort. That said the work is limited to themetabolic engineering of a single strain that will require conditions of sterility at large scale deployment. As such, this project may be more suited in DOE Basic Sciences or NSF. Reviewer: 7 Technically strong work, but the presentation did not address how research gains would be evaluated for commercial value, the magnitude of improvement that is required and expected, and on what time frame this might occur. Presenter Response Project: 9.2.1.2 University of Georgia Title: Improving cost effectiveness of algae-lipid production through advances in nutrient delivery and processing systems Presenter: K.C. Das Presentation Date: Thursday, April 07, 2011 Page 65 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: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 63: 2011 Algae Platform Review - Review
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
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?