Post on 15-Jul-2015
transcript
Jean-Marcel Ribaut 5th NGGIBCI
February 18-20,2015 ICRISAT, Patancheru, India
Translational Biology: The Generation Challenge Programme –
A Successful Case Study
Our Discussion Today:
♦ Translational biology
♦ Introduction to GCP
♦ Major achievements
♦ The Integrated Breeding Platform
♦ Lessons learnt and legacy
♦ Perspectives and conclusion
Translational Biology ♦ A “Must Have” to have impact on the ground ♦ A lot of good intention but still too little impact ♦ Research: Link upstream with applied research with well
defined delivery pipeline ♦ Examples of initiatives: Gates Foundation projects, African Orphan
Crop Consortium, NGGIBCI, GCP, others ♦ Deployment and sustainable adoption: Remains the major
challenge ♦ Still paternalistic approaches ♦ Keep scientists/breeders excited about their work (capacity building,
funds, recognition, partnerships, professional development, etc) ♦ It starts by implementing good practices
♦ Infrastructure (field and IT) ♦ Data and knowledge management ♦ Quality control
Impact of translational biology often relies on change management and the human component should not be underestimated
GCP in brief ♦ A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT ♦ Launched in August 2003 ♦ 10-year framework (Phase I, 2004–2008; Phase II, 2009–2013), with
2014 as the closing year ♦ About US$15–17m annual budget ♦ Target zones: drought-prone environments
♦ Sub-Saharan Africa, South & South East Asia, L. America ♦ Eighteen CGIAR mandate crops in Phase I ♦ Nine CGIAR mandate crops in Phase II
♦ Cereals: maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, ♦ Legumes: beans, chickpeas, cowpeas, groundnuts ♦ Roots and tubers: cassava
Strategic objective: To use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops
for greater food security in the developing world GCP: A broker in plant science bridging the gap between upstream and applied science
www.generationcp.org
Generation Challenge Programme (2013-2014)
('000 USD) TotalIncome - Donors 2003-2014 %
Austria 54 0 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 34,238 20 CGIAR Fund 16,521 10 DFID/UK 31,767 19 European Commission 57,280 34 Kirkhouse 15 0 Pioneer Foundation 210 0 Rockefeller Foundation 2,225 1 Sweden/SIDA 874 1 Switzerland/SDC 3,557 2 Syngenta Foundation 688 0 University of Illinois 48 0 USAID 400 0 World Bank 17,756 11 Interest Income 1,330 1 Other Income 55 0
Total Income 167,018 100
Expenditure
Research 142,550 86 Program Management 24,168 14
Total 166,718 100
Balance 300
Indicators ♦ Money allocation to partners ♦ Significant in-kind contribution from partners ♦ Open exchange of experience and information ♦ Partners not necessarily attracted (purely) by money, but to be part
of a network, visibility and exchanges with peers abroad ♦ Critical but indispensable intangibles – trust and goodwill ♦ Partners continue to work together after GCP projects end
Evolution of roles and responsibilities ♦ A switch: Leaders become mentors ♦ Knowledge applied & transferred: Trainees become doers & leaders ♦ In phase II, more than half of our PIs are from developing countries
and more than half the grants go directly to National Programmes
It takes time and resources to nurture and implement true partnership!
True Partnerships
The sorghum case: From Cornell to African farmers’ fields with a stopover in Brazil: a ten-year effort
♦ Step 1: Competitive Project (initiated 2004) ♦ Led by Cornell in collaboration with EMBRAPA ♦ Plantlets screened under hydroponics – Alt1 Gene cloned Magalhaes et al. 2007, Nature Genetics, 39: 1156–1151
♦ Step 2: Competitive Project (initiated 2007) ♦ Led by EMBRAPA in collaboration with Cornell ♦ Favourable alleles identified – Improved germplasm for
Brazil Caniato et al. 2011, PLoS One 6, e20830
♦ Step 3: Commissioned work (initiated 2009) ♦ Led by Moi University in collaboration with EMBRAPA ♦ Introgression of favourable alleles – Improved germplasm
for Kenya and Niger
Linking Upstream with Applied Science
♦ Genetic resources ♦ Reference sets for 18 crops (all CGIAR mandate crops)
♦ Genomic resources ♦ Markers for orphan crops
♦ Informative markers ♦ Drought, viruses and insect resistance
♦ Genes/QTL ♦ AltSB for Al tolerance, Pup1 for P uptake efficiency, Saltol for salt tolerance
and Sub1 for submergence tolerance. ♦ Improved germplasm ♦ New bioinformatic tools (data management, diversity studies, breeding,
etc) ♦ Enhanced capacity for MAB in NARS programmes
♦ Human resource capacity / physical infrastructure / analytical power ♦ Ex-ante analyses of MAB impact in developing countries
Product catalogue: www.generationcp.org/impact/product-catalogue
Selected Major Research Outputs
Peer-reviewed publications
5
25
51 57
68 78
73
90
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Journal articles published: 2005‒2013
Year
Num
ber
In selected high-impact journals (2007‒2013): • Nature: 5, Nature Biotech: 3 • Nature Genetics: 2, PNAS: 8
‘Classic’ approach ♦ Formal postgraduate training programmes
♦ 100+ MSc and PhD students whose work is embedded in research projects ♦ Workshops, fellowship grantees, travel grants ♦ Train-the-trainers for future regionalised capacity-building sustainability ♦ Communities of practice
♦ Rice in the Mekong; Cassava in Africa ♦ IBP-hosted (both crop- and expertise-based)
Perhaps not so common – probably uniquely GCP ♦ Capacity building à la carte ♦ Integrated Breeding Multi-Year Course: breeding, data management,
data analysis ♦ CB along the delivery chain (scientists, technicians, station managers) ♦ Technical support for infrastructure implementation ♦ IBP an integrated way to promote the problem-solving approach ♦ It is really about “learning as you go”
Capacity building
IBP Overall Objective To improve the efficiency of plant breeding
programmes in developing countries by enabling plant breeders to access modern breeding technologies,
breeding materials and related information in a centralised, integrated and practical manner
A platform to facilitate sustainable adoption and implementation of translational research outputs to
serve plant breeding needs
BMS Core Applications
IBP General Overview
Programme & information management • WorkBench (dashboard view) • Study Browser • Breeder Queries • Ontology Manager (9 crops) • Germplasm import tool • Data import tool
Breeding activities • Germplasm List Manager • Crossing Manager • Nursery Manager, with Seed
Inventory • Trial Manager • Integrated Breeding
FieldBook Statistical analysis –
Breeding View: • Single-Site Analysis • Multi-Site Analysis • Multi-Year Multi-Site Analysis; • Breeding View Standalone
for QTL • Quality assurance
Marker-assisted breeding • Integrated Breeding Planner • Genotypic Data Management
System (GDMS) • QTL Analysis Tools • Molecular Breeding Design
Tool (MBDT) • OptiMAS
♦ Supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: $12M
♦ GCP carry-over: $4M ♦ Clear shift from development to deployment! ♦ Deployment of the BMS is not just about adopting new
technology; it is about changing the way of doing breeding ♦ Behaviour change is a (THE) major challenge ♦ Focuses on sustainable adoption of good breeding practice,
starting with suitable and modern data management ♦ Very different baselines depending on breeding programme
format, resources and objectives ♦ Specific deployment plan
IBP Phase II (Oct 2014-2019)
One size doesn’t fit all!
I/ BMS
Network
CB
Crop resources
Services
IBP
Mid-term vision, beyond the current IBP: An Integrated Breeding Management System
Station MS
GIS MS Breeding MS
Finance MS
Lessons Learnt and Conclusions (I) ♦ Still early to measure impact on the ground at this stage
but overall, it seems that GCP has been a successful venture: ♦ Quality of science supported by impressive set of publications ♦ Broad range of products have been generated ♦ Networks will continue to operate under the leadership of
champions (regional, crop specific, across institutions) ♦ The GCP is already missed!
♦ Major achievements probably revolve around: ♦ Establishment of true and dynamic partnerships based on trust
and evolution of responsibilities: The GCP spirit! ♦ Cultural change on how to run R4D projects from a research and
management perspective ♦ Enabling partners in developing countries to access modern
biotechnologies
Lessons Learnt and Conclusions (II) ♦ An combined management of competitive vs
commissioned projects has been key to succeed ♦ The GCP model: “Broker in plant science” can be applied
to complement institutional core activities ♦ Lessons learnt from the CPs in general and GCP in
particular can positively inform the CRP organisational and operational models
♦ The legacy: The IBP lives on! ♦ Contributing to promote breeding evolution-revolution ♦ An integrated and comprehensive “one stop shop” approach ♦ Enabling GCP product deployment ♦ Providing capacity building support “as you go” ♦ An innovative business model approach
The BMS is building a very good momentum with increasing demand!
GCP/IBP International Staff 2003 - 2014 Akinola Akintunde Antonia Okono Arllet Portugal Carmen de Vicente Chunlin He Clarissa Pimentel Claudia Bedoya Corina Habito Delphin Fleury Diego González-
de-León Eloise Phipps Fernando Rojas Fred Okono Gillian Summers Graham McLaren
Hamer Pascal Hei Leung Humberto Gomez Jan Erik Backlund Jean Christophe
Glaszmann Jenny Nelson Jonathan Crouch Kaitlin Lesnick Kate Durbin Larry Butler Mae Christine
Maghirang Maria Teresa Ulat Mark Sawkins Ndeye Ndack Diop
Nelzo Ereful Nosisa Mayaba Peter Ninnes Philippe
Monneveux Rajeev Varshney Robert S. Zeigler Rowena Tulod Shawn Yarnes Theo van Hintum Valérie Boire Xavier Delannay
Genomics: sometime a flavor of The Miracle Approach
Crop diversity
Improved crops
Genomics
Translational Biology: To increase the probability that the Miracle occurs
Genomics: The Plant Genome Unveiled Today! Now what do we do with that?
Our Mission is Clearly Defined!
Thank you very much!