It sounds like the purpose of the conference call was not made clear. I requested we have a meeting to determine whether or not RosCAP should be resubmitted for SCRI and what changes need to be made. To determine this, we need to assess what matching funds we have and whether we could meet the $5 million currently requested. An e-mail was sent earlier detailing matching fund requirements so I don't think we need to wait for the RFA. Now that we have the RosCAP reviews we probably need to discuss what to do on a broader level.

Chris

________________________________

From: Norelli, Jay Sent: Thu 6/19/2008 6:17 PM To: Fazio, Gennaro; 'gf35@cornell.edu'; 'rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu'; 'Amit Dhingra'; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; 'Jim Luby'; Volk, Gayle; 'Sue Gardiner'; 'Jasper Rees'; 'Dan Sargent (EMR)'; 'eric.vandeweg@wur.nl' Cc: 'Bert Abbott'; 'Chad Finn'; 'Schuyler Korban'; 'Peace, Cameron'; 'tom.davis@unh.edu'; 'Folta, Kevin M.'; 'GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com'; 'Stan Hokanson'; 'Main, Doreen'; 'amdandekar@ucdavis.edu' Subject: RE: Conference call for SCRI funds planning DATE AND TIME SET: Friday June 20 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

I am not sure what productive discussions we can have regarding matching funds. Until the RFA comes out, I think it is pointless to speculate on what will and what will not be allowed for matching funds. It will be up to individual projects to identify their matching funds. The RosEXEC does not control matching funds. Nor I do think the RosEXEC should get into recommending specific proposal for Industry to support with matching funds. Perhaps we could play a role in pointing out to Industry that matching funds are required and solicit their support in committing matching funds. But how will solicit their support to provide matching funds without selecting specific projects to match (being a gatekeeper) will be tricky.

Jay

________________________________

From: Fazio, Gennaro Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:32 PM To: gf35@cornell.edu; rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu; Amit Dhingra; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); eric.vandeweg@wur.nl Cc: Bert Abbott; Chad Finn; Schuyler Korban; Peace, Cameron; 'tom.davis@unh.edu'; Folta, Kevin M.; Norelli, Jay; GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com; Stan Hokanson; Main, Doreen; 'amdandekar@ucdavis.edu' Subject: RE: Conference call for SCRI funds planning DATE AND TIME SET: Friday June 20 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

OK it looks like most of us are going to be able to participate on Friday (tomorrow) at 3 PM. I would recommend that we come prepared to discuss the issue of matching funds and some of the issues brought up from the RoseCAP reviews.

I will open this conference call beyond people on the committee as you "members" see fit (you can invite one additional participant each - conference calls cost). We are going to need more ideas for our strategic planning as a family.

See you tomorrow!!

All the best,

Gennaro

Gennaro Fazio, PhD Apple Rootstock Breeder and Geneticist Plant Genetic Resources Unit USDA ARS Cornell University - 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456 (315) 787-2480 Office (315) 787-2216 Fax

________________________________

From: Gennaro Fazio [mailto:gf35@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Fazio, Gennaro Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:53 PM To: 'rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu'; 'Amit Dhingra'; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; 'Jim Luby'; Volk, Gayle; 'Sue Gardiner'; 'Jasper Rees'; 'Dan Sargent (EMR)'; 'eric.vandeweg@wur.nl' Cc: 'Bert Abbott'; 'Chad Finn'; 'Schuyler Korban'; 'Peace, Cameron'; 'tom.davis@unh.edu'; 'Folta, Kevin M.'; Norelli, Jay; 'GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com'; 'Stan Hokanson'; 'Main, Doreen'; 'amdandekar@ucdavis.edu' Subject: Conference call for SCRI funds planning. Importance: High

Hello RosEXEC,

The timelines are going to be very tight for this SCRI funding. We need to hold another call this week to continue the strategic planning for the group.

Three dates are available:

June 20 Friday 3 PM Eastern [ ]

June 23 Monday 3 PM Eastern [ ]

June 24 Tuesday 3 PM Eastern [ ]

Check all available dates on your reply.

All the best,

Gennaro

PARTICIPANT ACCESS INFORMATION:

-------------------------------

PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: 2402523

TO JOIN A CONFERENCE

1) You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in an Instant Meeting

Conference.

2) Dial the appropriate access number

3) Enter numeric passcode followed by a "#"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEADER & PARTICIPANT ACCESS INFORMATION

---------------------------------------

Click http://www.mymeetings.com/audioconferencing/globalAccessFAQ.php for information on specific country access dialing.

Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA 0800-777-0515

AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4883 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0985 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1985 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7754 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5264 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8123 1-800-659-380

AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-120 0800-005-266

BELGIUM 32-2-400-9824 0800-3-8744

BRAZIL 0800-8911988

CHILE 1230-020-2638

CHINA* 10800-712-1677

10800-120-1677

COLOMBIA 01800-9-156477

CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-73 800-700-235

DENMARK 45-7014-0300 8088-8304

FINLAND 358-106-33-205 0-800-9-14607

FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-99 080-563-6110

FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-99 080-563-6110

FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-76-74-24-94 080-563-6110

GERMANY 49-69-2222-4873 0800-664-4254

GREECE 30-80-1-100-0698 00800-12-7310

HONG KONG 852-2286-5729 800-933-921

HUNGARY 06-800-13830

INDIA 000-800-852-1264

INDONESIA 001-803-011-3973

IRELAND 353-1-247-5678 1800-992-935

ISRAEL 1-80-9216159

ITALY 39-02-3600-6016 800-986-993

JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4783 0044-22-132424

JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5187 0044-22-132424

LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1384

MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3069

MEXICO 001-866-295-6360

NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8596 0800-023-1812

NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4767 0800-450-789

NORWAY 47-21-590-072 800-15308

PANAMA 011-001-800-5072111

POLAND 00-800-1212569

PORTUGAL 8008-14054

RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0114011

SINGAPORE 65-6883-9226 800-120-4675

SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-39

SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80424

SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1079 00798-14800-7189

SPAIN 34-91-414-25-40 800-300-060

SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-397 0200-884-614

SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6402 0800-120-039

TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7375 00801-137-796

THAILAND 001-800-1206-66050

UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9039 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3239 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2139 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-3043-2499 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1439 0808-238-6019

URUGUAY 000-413-598-3460

USA 1-517-466-2232 866-692-3582

VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3782

Gennaro Fazio, PhD Apple Rootstock Breeder and Geneticist Plant Genetic Resources Unit USDA ARS Cornell University - 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456 (315) 787-2480 Office (315) 787-2216 Fax

Dear Eric,

I appreciate your sentiment and my initial reaction was the same (I intended this to be RosCAP call). But after further reflection it seems to me that RosCAP was initiated by RosEXEC (perhaps I'm wrong here) and, given the poor reviews we received, perhaps we should throw it back to RosEXEC first.

Chris

Chris Dardick USDA, ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430 phone: 304-725-3451 ext. 387 fax: 304-728-2340 chris.dardick@ars.usda.gov

________________________________

From: rosexec-list-bounces@mail.bioinfo.wsu.edu [mailto:rosexec-list-bounces@mail.bioinfo.wsu.edu] On Behalf Of Weg, Eric van de Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 5:54 AM To: Dardick, Chris; Norelli, Jay; Fazio, Gennaro; gf35@cornell.edu; rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu; Amit Dhingra; Bassil, Nahla; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR) Cc: Bert Abbott Subject: Re: [ROSEXEC-LIST] Conference call for SCRI funds planning DATE ANDTIME SET: Friday June 20 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

Dear Chris,

If the purpose of the call is how to procede with RosCAP, should the call not be a RosCAP call instead of a RosExec? If so, it would be more sound to skip RosCAP from the agenda of today (and probably the netire call), and newly organize a RosCAP call. various people put a great effort in RosCAP while not being in the current mailing list (also not as cc), like Amy. The past months we did some community building while working on RosCAP. We should be cautious on this precious result (I hope my message is clear as I feel my phrasing/english is in shortage).

Kind regards,

Eric

________________________________

From: Dardick, Chris [mailto:Chris.Dardick@ars.usda.gov] Sent: vrijdag 20 juni 2008 0:29 To: Norelli, Jay; Fazio, Gennaro; gf35@cornell.edu; rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu; Amit Dhingra; Bassil, Nahla; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); Weg, Eric van de Cc: Bert Abbott; Chad Finn; Schuyler Korban; Peace, Cameron; tom.davis@unh.edu; Folta, Kevin M.; GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com; Stan Hokanson; Main, Doreen; amdandekar@ucdavis.edu Subject: RE: Conference call for SCRI funds planning DATE AND TIME SET: Friday June 20 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

It sounds like the purpose of the conference call was not made clear. I requested we have a meeting to determine whether or not RosCAP should be resubmitted for SCRI and what changes need to be made. To determine this, we need to assess what matching funds we have and whether we could meet the $5 million currently requested. An e-mail was sent earlier detailing matching fund requirements so I don't think we need to wait for the RFA. Now that we have the RosCAP reviews we probably need to discuss what to do on a broader level.

Chris

________________________________

From: Norelli, Jay Sent: Thu 6/19/2008 6:17 PM To: Fazio, Gennaro; 'gf35@cornell.edu'; 'rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu'; 'Amit Dhingra'; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; 'Jim Luby'; Volk, Gayle; 'Sue Gardiner'; 'Jasper Rees'; 'Dan Sargent (EMR)'; 'eric.vandeweg@wur.nl' Cc: 'Bert Abbott'; 'Chad Finn'; 'Schuyler Korban'; 'Peace, Cameron'; 'tom.davis@unh.edu'; 'Folta, Kevin M.'; 'GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com'; 'Stan Hokanson'; 'Main, Doreen'; 'amdandekar@ucdavis.edu' Subject: RE: Conference call for SCRI funds planning DATE AND TIME SET: Friday June 20 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

I am not sure what productive discussions we can have regarding matching funds. Until the RFA comes out, I think it is pointless to speculate on what will and what will not be allowed for matching funds. It will be up to individual projects to identify their matching funds. The RosEXEC does not control matching funds. Nor I do think the RosEXEC should get into recommending specific proposal for Industry to support with matching funds. Perhaps we could play a role in pointing out to Industry that matching funds are required and solicit their support in committing matching funds. But how will solicit their support to provide matching funds without selecting specific projects to match (being a gatekeeper) will be tricky.

Jay

________________________________

From: Fazio, Gennaro Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:32 PM To: gf35@cornell.edu; rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu; Amit Dhingra; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); eric.vandeweg@wur.nl Cc: Bert Abbott; Chad Finn; Schuyler Korban; Peace, Cameron; 'tom.davis@unh.edu'; Folta, Kevin M.; Norelli, Jay; GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com; Stan Hokanson; Main, Doreen; 'amdandekar@ucdavis.edu' Subject: RE: Conference call for SCRI funds planning DATE AND TIME SET: Friday June 20 at 3:00 PM Eastern.

OK it looks like most of us are going to be able to participate on Friday (tomorrow) at 3 PM. I would recommend that we come prepared to discuss the issue of matching funds and some of the issues brought up from the RoseCAP reviews.

I will open this conference call beyond people on the committee as you "members" see fit (you can invite one additional participant each - conference calls cost). We are going to need more ideas for our strategic planning as a family.

See you tomorrow!!

All the best,

Gennaro

Gennaro Fazio, PhD Apple Rootstock Breeder and Geneticist Plant Genetic Resources Unit USDA ARS Cornell University - 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456 (315) 787-2480 Office (315) 787-2216 Fax

________________________________

From: Gennaro Fazio [mailto:gf35@cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Fazio, Gennaro Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:53 PM To: 'rosexec-list@bioinfo.wsu.edu'; 'Amit Dhingra'; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; 'Jim Luby'; Volk, Gayle; 'Sue Gardiner'; 'Jasper Rees'; 'Dan Sargent (EMR)'; 'eric.vandeweg@wur.nl' Cc: 'Bert Abbott'; 'Chad Finn'; 'Schuyler Korban'; 'Peace, Cameron'; 'tom.davis@unh.edu'; 'Folta, Kevin M.'; Norelli, Jay; 'GVanSickle@caltreefruit.com'; 'Stan Hokanson'; 'Main, Doreen'; 'amdandekar@ucdavis.edu' Subject: Conference call for SCRI funds planning. Importance: High

Hello RosEXEC,

The timelines are going to be very tight for this SCRI funding. We need to hold another call this week to continue the strategic planning for the group.

Three dates are available:

June 20 Friday 3 PM Eastern [ ]

June 23 Monday 3 PM Eastern [ ]

June 24 Tuesday 3 PM Eastern [ ]

Check all available dates on your reply.

All the best,

Gennaro

PARTICIPANT ACCESS INFORMATION:

-------------------------------

PARTICIPANT PASSCODE: 2402523

TO JOIN A CONFERENCE

1) You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in an Instant Meeting

Conference.

2) Dial the appropriate access number

3) Enter numeric passcode followed by a "#"

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------

LEADER & PARTICIPANT ACCESS INFORMATION

---------------------------------------

Click http://www.mymeetings.com/audioconferencing/globalAccessFAQ.php for information on specific country access dialing.

Country Toll Numbers Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA 0800-777-0515

AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4883 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0985 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1985 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7754 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5264 1-800-659-380

AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8123 1-800-659-380

AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-120 0800-005-266

BELGIUM 32-2-400-9824 0800-3-8744

BRAZIL 0800-8911988

CHILE 1230-020-2638

CHINA* 10800-712-1677

10800-120-1677

COLOMBIA 01800-9-156477

CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-73 800-700-235

DENMARK 45-7014-0300 8088-8304

FINLAND 358-106-33-205 0-800-9-14607

FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-99 080-563-6110

FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-99 080-563-6110

FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-76-74-24-94 080-563-6110

GERMANY 49-69-2222-4873 0800-664-4254

GREECE 30-80-1-100-0698 00800-12-7310

HONG KONG 852-2286-5729 800-933-921

HUNGARY 06-800-13830

INDIA 000-800-852-1264

INDONESIA 001-803-011-3973

IRELAND 353-1-247-5678 1800-992-935

ISRAEL 1-80-9216159

ITALY 39-02-3600-6016 800-986-993

JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4783 0044-22-132424

JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5187 0044-22-132424

LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1384

MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3069

MEXICO 001-866-295-6360

NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8596 0800-023-1812

NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4767 0800-450-789

NORWAY 47-21-590-072 800-15308

PANAMA 011-001-800-5072111

POLAND 00-800-1212569

PORTUGAL 8008-14054

RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0114011

SINGAPORE 65-6883-9226 800-120-4675

SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-39

SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80424

SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1079 00798-14800-7189

SPAIN 34-91-414-25-40 800-300-060

SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-397 0200-884-614

SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6402 0800-120-039

TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7375 00801-137-796

THAILAND 001-800-1206-66050

UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9039 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3239 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2139 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-3043-2499 0808-238-6019

UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1439 0808-238-6019

URUGUAY 000-413-598-3460

USA 1-517-466-2232 866-692-3582

VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3782

Gennaro Fazio, PhD Apple Rootstock Breeder and Geneticist Plant Genetic Resources Unit USDA ARS Cornell University - 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456 (315) 787-2480 Office (315) 787-2216 Fax

I'm sorry, I thought everyone got the RosCAP reviews. Bert's e-mail is below:

Chris Dardick USDA, ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station 2217 Wiltshire Road Kearneysville, WV 25430 phone: 304-725-3451 ext. 387 fax: 304-728-2340 chris.dardick@ars.usda.gov

Folks, here are the reviews of the CAP proposal. It personally think that this did not review well and if we are going to submit it elsewhere or in the next call, it will need extensive revisions, mainly details. I am sorry that we did not do better, I hope this can be turned around and improved. Please digest and think about these reviews for our upcoming conference call. Bert

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:36:27 -0400 (EDT) From: GJOCHUM@CSREES.USDA.GOV To: aalbert@CLEMSON.EDU Subject: Review Package for Proposal 2008-02264 Submitted to USDA\CSREES X-SPF-Result: pass X-SPF-Record: v=spf1 ip4:192.73.224.66 ip4:192.73.224.5 ip4:199.128.236.4 ip4:199.128.236.89 mx -all X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.7160:2.4.4,1.2.40,4.0.166 definitions=2008-06-19_03:2008-06-18,2008-06-19,2008-06-19 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0805090000 definitions=main-0806190049

June 19, 2008 Area: National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program Program: Plant Genome Proposal Number: 2008-02264 Proposal Title: RosCAP: An Integrated Educational, Extension, and Research Program for Building Translational Breeding Infrastructure in Rosaceae Specialty Albert Glenn Abbott Genetics and Biochemistry Clemson University 100 Jordan Hall Clemson, SC 29634-5702 Dear Albert Abbott, Thank you for submitting your proposal to the Applied Plant Genomics Coordinated Agricutural Project (CAP) part of the Plant Genome Program of the National Research Initiative (NRI). We regret that the program is not able to provide funding for your proposal this year. The CAP part of the Plant Genome Program is able to fund 25% of the proposals received this year. Although the costs of integrated projects are constantly on the rise, the availability of funds for agricultural research, education and extension has not matched these increases. We are continuing our efforts to make awards that are meaningful in terms of duration and funds awarded. However, the overall quality of proposals has also increased, and thus the competition is extremely keen for the limited funds available. The panel rating report, panel summary, and individual reviews of your proposal are below. The panel members carefully evaluated your proposal. These panel members are fellow scientists selected for their competence in research, education and extension, and knowledge of your field. Your proposal was evaluated on scientific merit, qualifications of project personnel, adequacy of facilities, project management, and relevance to long-range improvements in and sustainability of U.S. Agriculture. We hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Ed Kaleikau at 202-401-1931 or ekaleikau@csrees.usda.gov. Thank you for your interest in the NRI. Sincerely, USDA/CSREES NRI Plant Genome Program Ed Kaleikau Ph.D., National Program Leader Gera Jochum, Program Specialist ==================================================================================================== Plant Genome - PANEL SUMMARY The panel decision regarding your proposal is based on the input provided by the reviews and the collected expertise and judgment of the individual panel members. This panel summary reflects the consensus opinion of the panel regarding your proposal. Proposal Number: 2008-02264 Project Director: Abbott Proposal Title: RosCAP: An Integrated Educational, Extension, and Research Program for Building Translational Breeding Infrastructure in Rosaceae Specialty Research: Positive Aspects of the Proposal This CAP proposal by Abbott and colleagues is seeking to enhance undergraduate and graduate education, to integrate extension service with academic programs, and to coordinate a mapping project of relevant traits of species in the Rosaceae family. The fruit crops are of great economic value and could benefit from enhanced academic programs in plant genomics. The team includes a large diversity of Rosaceous crops, numerous breeders, and important traits. The group has strengths in breeding, specifically molecular breeding.

Attempting QTL discovery directly in breeding populations is very desirable, and the use of FlexQTL to increase the robustness of QTL detection vs. simple biparental populations is a strength of the proposal. Because FlexQTL is still being developed and will be new to many of the breeders, the PD wisely included one of the developers of FlexQTL as a co-PI. Research: Negative Aspects of the Proposal Although the general concept of developing a breeder's toolbox of markers for each crop and for designated traits sounds good, the proposal is quite superficial regarding the details. Overall, the proposal conflates QTL mapping with marker-assisted breeding; essentially this project will map QTL, not develop markers tightly linked to economically important traits that are validated and used directly in breeding. In other words, the leap from QTL mapping to nailing down a marker-trait association and verifying that the linked markers are indeed linked in target populations and easy for breeders to use is completely absent from the proposal. The proposal gives far too few details on some significant areas. The number of markers available and approaches to develop more markers to get close to traits were not specified. In order for FlexQTL to work, pedigrees need to be known, but whether they actually are known for the germplasm to be evaluated in each of the crops is not stated. Also, how all the phenotypic and genotypic data will be assembled and analyzed is not mentioned. This will not be trivial. While involving many labs is commendable, rather than presenting a diffuse set of goals for many different species, an opportunity has been missed to focus on fewer traits, really trying to identify markers for them using the power of comparative mapping among these species. Freedom to operate across programs, particularly if markers are very tightly associated, could be a problem, yet this issue was not addressed. Lastly, the proposal mentions the value of vertical integration, but unfortunately, this synergy is not apparent. Little coordination exists among the different research groups, and since traits are already identified, the growers and extension personnel seem to have had little input into the proposed research directions. Research: Synthesis Comments The proposal has some conceptually interesting ideas, but the discussion of actual details was simply too vague, with too many loose ends. The research plan lacks originality and presents no clear timeline to reach the milestones desired. The panel appreciates the complexity of trying to pull a number of diverse crops with divergent needs together into a single proposal. However, the proposal was not written clearly. It appears that different members wrote their specific sections with little coordination, and integration among the groups was not evident. The proposal needs a tighter focus and critical details on methodology must be presented. Education/Extension: Positive Aspects of the Proposal The Education program targets undergraduate life science majors who are not aware of translational plant breeding (modern plant breeding) as a life science career. A small scale, but intensive, program to excite and direct undergraduates to be the next generation of plant breeders is proposed. The program would also support graduate students that are a part of the CAP program PIS and integrate both levels of students into working groups of geneticists, breeders, extension specialists and producers. The program describes many of the priority items for the CAP grant program. The team integration proposed would establish the professional relationships and understanding that are key to modern plant breeding. Facilitating a mentoring role for graduate students is an excellent decision, as was early stakeholder involvement. The RoseCAP team has identified the correct target population for the desired impact of educating the next generation of plant breeders. In addition, they propose alluring hooks to attract students such as opportunities to travel and the chance to work with interesting crop species. The workshops on plant breeding could be of interest, especially in field tours that provide visual highlights of the plant breeding process.

Education/Extension: Negative Aspects of the Proposal The methods and approach are high risk and not likely to produce successful outputs and outcomes for several reasons. It is not likely that students who are at this stage of decision making and self discovery are prepared to make this degree of commitment or can determine their interest from preliminary or promotional exposure. The process described would benefit from a process that provides more opportunity for more students in the early stages or that can accommodate students later in their degree programs. The weakness of an implementation plan for education and extension was emphasized in our discussion. For education, detail should be provided about the nature of course modules that introduce and excite freshman and sophomore life science students about translational plant breeding. Panelists expected these modules would start with clear learning outcomes that would be a part of first and second year undergraduate biology courses. For example, the role of genotype and environment on the expression of a trait, or the desire to make better predictions by using DNA sequence or linkage analysis are applications of concepts taught in introductory genetics. These are also the kinds of problems solved and decisions made by a translational plant breeder. Undergraduate teaching modules that use translational plant breeding of apples or peaches as the case study to hook students into the possibilities of this work as a career would be the kinds of specific education outputs that should be described. There are examples of peer reviewed scholarly outputs of this work in The Journal of Life Sciences and Natural Resources. Partnering with curriculum development experts at the CAP institutions would facilitate the learning impact of these modules. Generally, the extension proposed to growers and extension specialists is traditional. Assessment of education/extension outcomes is not described. The education outcomes that would be measurable from this project would be the number of students that start and stay with this project. However, this is not likely to be a measure of success. Education/Extension: Synthesis Comments The education and extension components meet program expectations but are high risk and lack the detail necessary to evaluate implementation. Overall Synthesis Comments The panel felt that this proposal not only lacked a convincing workable research plan, but also failed to demonstrate the synergy of contributors. Integration of education and extension lacks originality and details to achieve desirable goals. ==================================================================================================== The following reviews were submitted for your proposal, the names of the reviewers have been removed to maintain confidentiality. ====================================================================================================

The RosCAP project proposes to develop an integrated research, education, and extension program that focuses on Rosaceous crops. The project is based on a strategic plan that has come out of workshops that had input from the broader Rosaceae community.

In reviewing this proposal it was clear to this reviewer that there were strengths in this project across all three areas. However, the organization and structure of the proposal, in particular the degree of parsing the components, made review of the proposal difficult. This structure seemed to result in some components being described with well-written prose but too few details (e.g., student outputs) or components being detailed with lists that suffer from too little description and context (e.g., subfamily infrastructure).

The undergraduate education model focuses on 18 students across participating institutions that will engage in new curricular elements, research, and (potentially) international internships. The approach of recruiting and educating students within the allied disciplines, developing plant breeding courses, and offering international opportunities are meritorious. However, critical details are missing: How many students per institution? Are they enrolled together in online courses or separately, and if so are these small lab classes? Who develops the courses and what is their expertise? The evaluation component is weak and there is no dissemination plan. And, importantly, what part of the vertical integration does the undergraduate education piece aim to address: are these students being educated to enter careers in plant breeding or into graduate careers to be researchers.

The graduate education component is strong, particularly with regard to mentoring undergrads and interacting with stakeholders early on. It is unclear who will develop the specialty workshops and what their expertise is in this area. There is no evaluation component.

Similarly the extension component is weak in describing who the experts are, how evaluation will be done, and how this effort will be sustained.

The genomics research sections tend to take the form of lists of activities. There is little or no detail or discussion in these sections. It is unclear to this reviewer what the breeder's "toolkits" are exactly, or why they would be referred to as toolkits as opposed to resources.

The novel statistical approach is an exciting new opportunity in this area of research.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1) Merit This CAP proposal by Abbot and colleagues is seeking to enhance undergraduate and graduate education, to integrate extension service with academic programs, and to coordinate a mapping project of relevant traits of species in the Rosaceae family. This is a very superficial proposal that is seeking to please the program requirements but has very little substance. Clearly, the synergy is not apparent. Two to three regular proposal could have achieved the scientific components of this proposal. Many of its objectives are rather regular institutional duties and subject to regular academic planning and priorities. If not done so, their institutions would not meet regular accreditation requirements. For instance, the PI proposes to attract students to plant breeding. However, the actual recruitment of freshmen is not well laid out. Experience abroad is an excellent although not original concept. To bring undergraduates to the San Diego meeting is questionable. There will be no way to measure the success of this objective at the end of the grant. Integration of extension service into academic programs is one of the main challenges to Ag Experiment Station Directors, but should be anyway an institutional goal. If these initiatives would have been already in place and would now benefit from innovative research projects, one could have considered this as a serious proposal, but that is not the case. In respect to the research projects there was no underlying theory for any of the traits, but rather a request for a fishing expedition. 2) Qualification The principal investigator (PI) is Albert Glenn Abbott, who rose through the ranks at Clemson since 1984 and became an internal appointment of the Coker Chair of Plant Molecular Biology after Rod Wing left for Arizona. The PI has also submitted a similar size grant to NSF on Rosaceae Genomics. There are numerous CVs attached to this proposal, but there is no integration of how talents are applied in a synergistic manner. 3) Relevance The fruit crops are of great economic value and could benefit from enhanced academic programs in plant genomics. There is also a need to attract young researchers to the breeding profession to implement new strategies resulting from genomics research. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

RosCap

Problem - lack of breeding infrastructure for specialty crops

Objectives

1. Improve education of future specialty crops breeders

2. Promote value of translational breeding

3. Build Rosaceae breeding infrastructure

4. Promote and support translational breeding in Rosaceae

Outcomes

1. Strengthen fruit industry

2. Strengthen breeding programs

3. Attract and educate new breeders

4. Build effective breeding pipeline

5. Partner with international breeders

6. Vertically integrate research education extension and stakeholders

7. Create an effective pipeline to market

8. Create a platform for the Rose community to exchange ideas

As seen above project objectives and outcomes are clearly described. However each has not been adequately justified in the current grant. The current short fall of plant breeders is unclear as is how much the training proposed will impact that short fall. Also, it seems that the primary extension focus is to promote translational breeding. While this seems appropriate to improve plant breeder efficiency I wonder how this effort will help industry and other stakeholders. So in this proposal it is unclear how stakeholders benefit from extension efforts, although they will benefit from the production of new varieties and varieties might better suit their needs if communication is improved. The proposal does not clearly address how the outputs will achieve all the listed objectives, although the reader can see how several would be positively impacted by the current proposal. In particular Outcomes 4 and 7 above are not clearly addressed. Research education and extension are all addressed in the objectives.

(b) Proposed approach, procedures, or methodologies are innovative, original, clearly described, suitable, and feasible;

Objective 1

Proposes to attract and educate new breeders by first initiating RosCap Creative Inquiry Program for 18 undergraduates. This project will be implemented in 6 US institutions. It will include two new courses and a summer research internship. It might include study abroad depending on the student. Problems: Recruitment is not well defined. A specific recruitment plan is necessary that will describe how new students will be attracted and what steps will be taken if no students are attracted. Involvement of a recruitment officer might be helpful. I wonder if it would not be better to attract students through a scholarship that is given to High School Seniors that would support their education as long as they remained in the program. It is unclear if or how the two new classes will be different from existing courses. It is unclear how these new courses will be created and how they will be integrated between the participating universities. It is unclear who will be responsible for the creation of these courses. It is unclear how the content will meet the objectives and outcomes. There is no documentation that the participating Universities will accept the new courses and no plan to make them a permanent part of the curriculum.

This objective also involves the support of nine graduate students. It is unclear how these students will be recruited. The graduate training does not seem to go beyond the normal training of students in the applicant's laboratory. Although joint workshops for graduate students are planned, they are undefined as to who will be responsible for design and implementation, as well as the objectives, and outcomes. They also seem to include such a broad audience (stakeholders) making specific objectives unclear. Again it is unclear how the training of these students is different and how it will provide a long term change.

Objective 2 - Extension

The focus of the extension plan seems two-fold. 1) To build relationship amongst the Rosaceae community 2) and to convince stakeholders of the value of MAB. To build community strategic planning sessions will be implemented. The plan for these sessions is undefined other than they will meet in year 1 and 4. Will the group meet as a whole or as commodity groups? What will be the structure of these meetings? Who will organize? Who will attend? How will stakeholders be encouraged to attend? Is there financial support for attendance? I could identify travel money to support PIs attendance, but am unclear about what other support is planned. To build community it seems important to meet more often than is planned. Informing stakeholders of the importance of MAB is critical to garner support for breeders, but does not seem to directly benefit the stakeholders. They will benefit from improved varieties however they are created. There is money for an extension coordinator whose duties include creating outputs and assessments. In all, this objective would benefit from identifying specific outcomes for each audience so that outputs could be designed to meet those outcomes. Extension personnel are part of this program, but I wonder if extension agents need/want to be trained in MAB. How will they be encouraged to attend training? What is the learning outcome here? Another objective is to encourage breeders to initiate MAB. It is unclear from the proposal how many breeders would be impacted by this effort. How many breeders are in the Rosaceae community? How many currently use MAB? How many will be part of this project?

Objective 3 - will primarily build translational breeding infrastructure. It will provide phenotyping, software and statistical support, a web based portal and database, and a DNA Reference bank. These all seem necessary and important to the project and adequately supported.

Objective 4 - involves implementing MAB in three sub-family groups Maloideae, Amygdaloideae, and Rosoidae. Traits for MAB have been selected with stakeholder input. Different levels of information are currently available for each of the sub-families. For Maloideae, QTLs have been identified for acidity sugar content and fire blight resistance by European researchers. It is the plan to identify closer markers, although it is unclear from the proposal what makers will be pursued or how new markers will be created. It is unclear the level of polymorphism within the populations, the number of potential markers and the likelihood of developing other markers. Information for Amygdaloideae is more complete. For this sub-family they have SSR markers that have been mapped at a resolution of 10cM in peach. As well as sequence information from peach that can be used to created new markers. They also have indications that the other members of the sub-family show enough co-linearity to be able to use the peach markers and sequence. They plan to identify 2 QTLs for each of 4 traits for fine mapping and further marker development. The success of the peach mapping seems sure, but success for almond and cherry depend on the ability to use peach to provide the necessary tools. In the Rose sub-family it is planned to focus on flowering. It is stated that this trait is highly effected by environment and I wonder if 2 to 3 environments is enough. It is helpful that the populations will be propagated asexually for the different environments. There is a SSR AFLP map for Fragaria, although it is not stated the level of marker resolution. I wonder if polyploidy will pose a problem. It is a stated goal to develop more markers for raspberry and rose, but not clear what markers will be pursued.

(c) Expected results or outcomes are clearly stated, measurable, and achievable within the allotted time frame;

Although outcomes are stated, it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of success without more information.

(e) Proposed extension leads to measurable, documented changes in learning, actions, or conditions in an identified audience or stakeholder group; and

There is no clear measurable change in learning actions or conditions for stakeholders. One measurable change could be increased use by breeders of MAB, but no indication of how prevalent its use is currently.

(f) Proposed education (teaching) has an impact upon and advances the quality of food and agricultural sciences by strengthening institutional capacities and curricula to meet clearly delineated needs and train the next generation of scientists and educators.

No letters of support from Universities that curriculum changes are welcome or will be permanently instituted. No clear change in the recruitment or mentoring of students.

2. Qualifications of Project Personnel, Adequacy of Facilities, and Project Management

(a) Roles of key personnel are clearly defined;

Role of extension coordinator not clearly defined. Who will create new curriculum and/or workshops is not clearly defined. Who will measure outcomes not clearly defined.

(b) Key personnel have sufficient expertise to complete the proposed project, and where appropriate, partnerships with other disciplines (e.g., social science or economics) and institutions are established;

As mentioned above, someone to give advice on recruitment might be helpful.

(e) A clear plan is articulated for project management, including time allocated for attainment of objectives and delivery of products, maintenance of partnerships and collaborations, and a strategy to enhance communication, data sharing, and reporting among members of the project team; and

There is no clear plan for the distribution of the "Future National Interest" money which is proposed to be subcontracted to several groups including almost 300,00 to the Appalachian Fruit Research

(f) The budget clearly allocates sufficient resources to carry out a set of research, education (teaching), and/or extension activities that will lead to desired outcomes, with no more than two-thirds of the budget focused on a single project component.

There appears to be appropriate funding of research, education and extension, although it is very hard to determine the distribution of funds amongst the three priorities. Most of the money for education is for the support of students that will work on the project. The primary extension expense is for an Extension Coordinator and to establish three workshops and the travel to those workshops. It is not clear if any money is set aside for the vertical integration of extension education and research. For example, cannot find money for the train the trainer workshop or the strategic planning sessions.

3. Project Relevance

(a) The project addresses a stated program priority;

Yes

(b) Project components (research, education, and/or extension)-at least two are required-are fully integrated and necessary to address the problem or issue;

To a certain extent the three components are integrated in that the research is stakeholder driven and students trained will do the research and in the future be involved in sustaining breeding efforts. The extension part is not as well integrated in that the research does not seem to be interdependent with the extension. Not clear how industry will benefit from extension efforts.

(f) For extension or education (teaching) activities, curricula and related products will sustain education or extension functions beyond the life of the project; and

Although it is hoped that education and extension will continue, there is no plan for sustained education and extension after the life of the project. There is no supporting documentation supporting this continuation.

(g) For extension or education (teaching) activities, the resulting curricula or products share information and recommendations based on knowledge and conclusions from a broad range of research initiatives.

The curriculum for education and extension activities is not well defined or described.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Merit - This project is intended to strengthen Rosaceae specialty crop breeding, coordinate research efforts and improve the state of plant breeding education and training in the US. However, the proposal lacks necessary detail in all of its components.

While the 'pedigree genotyping' approach to QTL detection might no longer be considered innovative, it is well-aligned with the current trend to detect marker-trait associations in relevant breeding populations. Still, there is not even brief mention of methods for detecting QTL, computing IBD probabilities, estimating and incorporating polygenic effects, or combining unbalanced phenotypic data, nor how RosCAP will extend methods and software already available. Do the PIs expect difficulty in combining gel-based SSR data across programs, and if so how will they address that? Training U.S. staff and students in data analysis by WUR scientists is mentioned without providing a specific plan for implementation or evaluation, though this component of knowledge/technology transfer has proven to be a frequent challenge in deploying molecular breeding to the field. What specific marker platform will be used in the 'breeders' toolkit' and what infrastructure will be needed or is available? In describing projects for each sub-family, there is inconsistency in information provided on experimental design; in some cases important detail on sample size, marker density, number of reps and germplasm sampling strategy is absent. Organization by sub-family may run the risk of groups operating in silos where there may be critical advantage in maximizing discussion of strategies (e.g. most efficient pedigree structure, sample size, field design), logistics (e.g. standardization and collation of phenotypic data, common checks, timelines) and lessons learned.

The authors propose a RosCAP Creative Inquiry Program to attract undergraduates to plant breeding, but its coursework is not distinct from standard curricula, and it is unclear why such courses ('Molecular Techniques in Plant Breeding' or 'Plant Breeding Techniques') need to be developed here. There is no clear connection between this program and its stated outcome 'to encourage development of graduate programs directed at translational breeding'. Similarly, the authors propose developing graduate workshop courses also apparently of generic content (basic molecular marker technologies, translational breeding theory and practice, bioinformatics in translational breeding). One distinction might be exposure to 'breeders, growers, industry representatives and research scientists', but this piece needs to be emphasized much more and formalized to ensure concrete outcomes. Letters of support are provided, but neither the Education nor Extension team (Management Plan) enlist an industry partner.

Qualifications - Statistical analysis will be a major component and should be covered well by van de Weg (% time?) and PRI collaborators. I could not find a timeline to track project milestones (except for administrative activities), and it is unclear if some sub-projects can be completed in four years as described (SSR marker development, population development, phenotyping, QTL detection and/or fine-mapping).

Relevance - Target crop species and traits are relevant and prioritized by the community. Pedigree genotyping is increasingly used for detection in elite breeding populations both in public and private sectors. Indeed, there is a critical gap in plant breeding recruitment, education and training of the nature stated here, but the approaches to address this problem are not clearly distinct from current (and mostly unsuccessful) programs, or their description lacks the detail to recognize key differences and assess potential impact.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rose CAP

All my reviews focus on a subset of Integrated proposal criteria.

1. Merit

a. Education and Outreach Objectives/Outcomes

-Focus audience is the undergraduate in the life science who would be potentially excited by a career in modern plant breeding (translational plant breeding). These students will be recruited from existing student pools at the CAP team institutions.

-Also budget for graduate students in translational plant breeding programs.

-The extension audience is the breeder , extension educator and business people who support the end user of Rosacae crops

b. Approach

- Create a four year program to attract science oriented undergraduates into plant breeding, build summer work experience , two unique courses and one workshop into their undergraduate program.

- Support graduate students (9 per year)

- International experience for participants (not sure)

Extension approach is traditional (fact sheets)

c. Outcomes and e. Impact Measurables

- student participation in program

- institutional changes in programming in the life sciences

- student choice of career path

f. Capacities and Curricula for next generation of Scientists and Educators

The target audience is ideal for this goal, but a challenging audience to impact. The CAP group has the expertise at the various institutions and the meetings thus far in preparing this proposal have started the process of connecting 'broken pipelines' in the Rosacea research, breeding and production system.

Connect with CDPC should be goodŠ. Start to build an expert network.

GDR existsŠ. Is research orientedŠ not yet a venue for the nonexpert.

If students who are 16/17 years old now buy into the plan and stay with the plan, the infrastructure will start to be built.

Curricula are not likely to impact a large audience than the recruited students.

2. Qualification & Management

a/b/c. Roles, Expertise, Capacity.

The academic and breeding expertice is clear. The track record on working with and motivating young people is not. Therefore, management needs to be explicit in order to stay with time line goals.

e. Clear plan

I believe the plan has some attractive hooks with interesting work that uses science and the opportunity for travel. The CAP team is broad and diverse and likely has individuals with track records in working with undergraduates. However, it is difficult for 18 year olds to buy into a four year program that has this level of commitment. Therefore, the plan is high risk.

The same is true of graduate students and the program here is really focused on the success in recruiting undergrads.

The plan for sub group teams (Researcher, Breeder, Educator, Extension Specials

Industry Rep.) for the students to join is attractive and should result in the CAP infrastructure developing as a user/learner friendly resource. The tool kit approach provide a good context for learning and thinking about how the combine contributions of specialists works together to the common goal.

f. Budget

Support for education and extension seems to be dispersed among CAP team members.

3. Relevance

f/g. Sustainable and Broad

Breath from institutions, crop diversity and contributions of diverse professionals.

Sustainability relies on changes in institutions or changes in teaching motivated by the effort to translate teaching into problem solving stories. The proposal provides little evidence that their valid goal of igniting an interest in modern plant breeding among our science oriented undergrad students will cause sustainable change in how the CAP team does their work.

There is no evidence of this CAP leveraging the efforts and success of other CAPS or other places that successfully impact and motivate translational science.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Research component

The research will be conducted within three groups corresponding to three sets of species within the Rosaceae that have economic value.

The plan is basically to genotype a large number of individuals-either core germplasm sets or biparental mapping populations-and apply the genotypes to phenotypic data that will be generated based on common protocols. Data analysis will be done using FlexQTL to enable pedigree data to be incorporated into the mapping process. The goal is to develop "breeders' toolkits" for selected traits.

Conceptually, I like the general idea, but the devil's in the details. The most obvious potential problem is that the number of markers available for some species is not particularly large. Actually, the numbers of markers that are currently available is not specified for any of the species, so it is somewhat difficult to know how large a problem this will be.

The QTL analysis method sounds very good, and certainly using pedigree information will help identify QTL. What isn't clear to me is to what extent the pedigrees are known for the genotypes to be evaluated in the different species. Are the pedigrees clearly known? Also, what happens if a very broad array of starting germplasm is entered into the program-won't there be problems of many alleles/haplotypes and small class sizes? I have reservations about the QTL analysis in the absence of any real discussion about how it will be carried out.

Assuming that QTL are identified (and I'm certain that at least some will be), markers will be targeted to these intervals to more closely map the underlying QTL. The first question is where additional markers will come from, but secondarily, better resolution will require additional recombinants at some point. Do the PIs expect that the recombination present within their pedigrees is sufficient to identify markers very closely linked to the QTL?

Finally, the actual translation to breeding never seems to show up. Toolkits, QTL populations, and so on are fine, but where is the breeding program that will select based on the QTL, recombine desired plants, etc. That seems to be a step away....maybe there's no possibility of getting to this stage in four years, but I would have liked to know more about the actual application to an actual cultivar development-as opposed to research-program.

In summary, the concept is great, but the implementation of the concept across a series of diverse species is not clear. Whether the appropriate resources (markers, pedigree info, etc.) are available is just not documented well enough. And the vertical integration sounds great, but it seems that traits have already been identified, germplasm is being evaluated-where does the vertical integration actually show up in the work to be done?

Education/Extension

The PIs have clearly thought about working undergraduate and graduate students into projects, and they should be commended for that. The undergrad program is needed to get students thinking plants. However, the curriculum is a bit ambitious-graduate students often have problems with plant breeding concepts and molecular technologies. To expect a sophomore to take a course in that is simply unrealistic. Still, the idea of developing a cohort of students from different universities who can come together in the summer and possibly integrate study abroad efforts is really good, and a strong aspect of this project. The assessment methodology is not clear to me, however.

The grad program is fine, particularly partnering the undergrads with a grad student. While this is often done, having a formalized structure for this mentoring activity is excellent.

As far as the extension component....well, the proposal has many ideas, but they are somewhat diffuse. And I'm really not sure of the need for/value of extensive programs to highlight translational genomics to producer groups and the like. Something that is of interest, however, are programs discussing plant breeding in general (and the PIs mention this)-how are the new cultivars developed, with what traits, etc. This is something farmers and others are interested in. I suggest focusing generally on plant breeding, and within that framework, discuss how all types of technology and methods can be used. There's nothing magical about translational breeding-in fact, amazing things have been bred without any modern technologies at all-so having that integrated into a broader program of education/extension on plant breeding and cultivar development would be preferable.

Overall, these programs are somewhat more fully realized than is often the case on these grants.

Summary comments

I like aspects of this project very much-the undergrad program, linking undergrads with grads, discussing phenotyping and plant breeding in the extension area, and conceptually the development of breeders toolboxes. However, the implementation of some of these ideas is either sketchy or unrealistic, and considerable detail of importance is not provided. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Merit

The project objectives are clearly outlined and integrated to address effective Rosaceae breeding and integrated development of the human resources. All 3 project components are substantially addressed, with research and education leading and extension built up from communication across the ranks from stakeholder to researcher and student. Research focuses on the "low-hanging-fruit" that would make the outputs very viable to engage education and extension in an interactive experience. There is therefore a balance where the research products would be able to reach the stakeholder in the minimal time.

The RosCAP proposes to address the dwindling plant breeding student population head-on by kindling and supporting an interest from undergraduate-graduate level onwards, using an original way by allowing students to continue in their chosen undergraduate field of interest but train them in modern breeding methodologies. This is very appropriate for a multi-disciplinary approach of doing science, each specialty contributing with different required expertise with a common goal, and will foster team science from these selected individuals. The main research focus of utilizing Pedigree Genotyping (PG) is a very attractive approach to the analysis of gene/locus-phenotype correlations which has its basis in human genetics and animal breeding and uses robust statistical systems and software proven in the Rosaceae. The research, education and extension components are completely integrated through the program, with unique solutions and vertical communication of problems and modern solutions.

Under each objective gaps in the field are identified which are addressed by inputs, outputs, outcomes (short/long-term) and evaluation steps. Each of these steps provides lists/table of achievable goals that are followed through the input to evaluation process. For example, in objective 1 undergraduate and graduate education are targeted, which results can be queried in the evaluation process of where the students end up contributing from their education, which should be traceable within the project duration. Objective 3 on translation breeding infrastructure is exemplified by a focus on germplasm phenotyping which is supported by software/statistical support, databases/webportal development. The success of integration of these procedures will be tested by the achievement of the selected trait improvements that are targeted across the crops and are addressed under Objective 4 of the proof-of-concept of the RosCAP translational pipeline which provide a set of expected deliverables across research, education and extension. Although the strategy relies on the integration of the RosCAP activities, each objective and focus result is selected to be independent and therefore can be successful by itself, and yet contribute to the whole RosCAP.

The research goals are evenly distributed across the Rosaceae within the 3 sub-families and the research topics of quality, resistance and horticultural traits. The PG system is able to utilize multiple populations with many individuals screened for various traits in multiple environments, some of which are the present focus, but will continue to provide mapped traits in international collaborations beyond the project. It has therefore a broad future, yet will be able to deliver within this project the low-hanging-fruit such as virus resistance, apple quality and modulation of flowering for which the available information has to be brought together in a concerted way, as proposed in the project.

The proposal in extension is to document and publicize the fruits of RosCAP translational breeding through various events such as train-the-trainer workshops which will target end-users such as consumers, stakeholders, breeders/producers, industry and the production-chain. The translational breeding results will be used to vertically integrate research, breeding, education and the end-users. Evaluation of the extension component will be done by the extent of participation from different stakeholders and the adoption of breeding tools by breeding programs. This proposal defines a cohesive extension program.

The educational component intends to capture talent at the undergraduate level, support graduate study and groom them towards development of a modern plant breeder trained in practical modern technologies with experience in multi-disciplinary and international teams. The proposal has a good education plan as it nurtures talent of a select group who would continue to perform and contribute directly after the project and for years to come.

Qualifications

The specific roles of the key personnel are described in the management plan, with 3 managers for education, translational breeding and administration. For each objective, specific team leaders and key personnel are identified, their tasks being divided regionally for education and extension or by specific expertise for the two research objectives. These roles lead back to individual descriptions of the key personnel contributions.

The personnel show evidence of expertise. For education at different levels University education in selected departments will be undertaken with the PI taking leadership. For extension, Olmstead with a job title of "Area education educator" will take leadership with a diverse team including the social sciences. The translational breeding will be led by sub-family specialists and the infrastructure component by a specialist team for leadership in databases, genotyping and phenotyping.

The project is very well imbedded in international collaboration with the primary groups in the world working on the Rosaceae. Special contribution comes from software for pedigree genotyping that strengthen the capabilities in translational genomics and breeding.

There are sufficient facilities and instrumentation documented in the participating labs to be able to carry out the proposed work.

Although a clear plan is given for the project management structure, the timelines of interaction between the different objectives and components are not provided. Attention should be given to this as it is required for success of specific parts of the project plan.

The budget is balanced, with the research component probably half, mainly supporting the database and infrastructure parts. The education parts are strong providing the backbone and the work-force for the research as well as extension components.

Relevance

The project is relevant as the project addresses a crop family which is very valuable with the Crop value of Rosaceae in 2007 being 8.2 billion. But because of the long time to flower, breeding is difficult in some tree members, while others such as strawberry have shorter cycles and are more amenable to genetics and functional genomics.

All three project components are fully integrated. The education plan is simple yet has a potential to grow in different geographical regions and different levels and multi-disciplines. The novel yet practical translational genomics and breeding program is used as a focus to support extension and education activities.

In discussions and surveys from stakeholders and participants, the production of a white paper and with supporting research and technological developments, the proposed strategy is catered to use modern technology to serve stakeholders needs.

The involvement of different stakeholders has been there in the development of the plans and is proposed to involve them throughout the project.

Evaluation is built into the plan at different levels and is addressed in the proposal description. This process is planned to be used in an iterative way in developing the extension component.

The education component seems very bright to sustain interest in translational breeding, even one crop of multi-discipline trained breeders can be an exceptional output of this project that will sustain development for a generation. The extension program will be able to reach out to multiple stakeholders demonstrating the promise and accomplishments of the translational breeding program, which will refurbish the eroded educational and breeding infrastructure in universities.

The thrust of the education is multi-disciplinary, encompassing undergraduate students from different majors/interests into the program. The involvement of educational activities are at different levels of translational breeding from phenotyping and genotyping to databases and statistics etc, thus a broad range of disciplines all of which are incorporated in the extension and education programs.

Concluding Remarks

I am struck with the fact that throughout the proposal there has been very little discussion on the development of markers. The markers are always referred to as genome-spanning set of SSR markers, however when I look at the specific quoted publications they are not very dense, and together with the low progeny size in the different pedigreed populations would not contribute to high resolution mapping of targeted QTLs.

This is indirectly stated in section 4.B.2 on translating of available genomics data into a breeders' toolkit, where the project peach genome sequence (end 2008) would be used. However, that is quite an undertaking and there is no plan in this proposal to develop these markers.

Similarly for apple in section 4.A.2 the plan is to narrow the broadly mapped QTL regions (citations from Abstracts, question is if they are available) from a marker density of 1/20cM to 1/5cM. No plan for this is provided. A dependence on markers developed by others might limit their use in commercial breeding applications, and this should be considered.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________