Transcript Slide 1

EVALUATION
OF OUTREACH EFFORTS
Michael Coe
Cedar Lake Research Group
Feedback From RosBREED Events
Event
MAB in Action! at ASHS
July 2012, Miami FL
Pedigree-Based Analysis
Workshop 2012
March 2012, Michigan State University
Pedigree-Based Analysis
Workshop 2011
March 2011, Michigan State University
RosBREED Workshop at
ASHS
August 2010, Palm Desert CA
Pedigree-Based Analysis
Workshop 2010
June 2010, Michigan State University
Audience
Topics
All Rosaceae
breeders and
allied scientists
• Overview of integrating DNA information at various points in a breeding program
• Priorities and logistics for applying known QTLs (marker-locus-trait associations)
within existing breeding programs
• Improving knowledge of the germplasm available in an existing breeding program
• Selecting parents, designing crosses
• Culling seedlings
Demonstration
breeders and
trainees
• Crop teams practiced use of FlexQTL to analyze their real data
• Plenary sessions on interpretation of output and use for breeding decisions
Demonstration
breeders and
trainees
• In-depth FlexQTL concepts, workflow, analytic models, interpretation
• Use of R scripts for graph generation
• Tuning analyses for accuracy and speed
All Rosaceae
breeders and
allied scientists
• RosBREED project overview and goals
• RosBREED socio-economic research
• Building capacity for marker-assisted breeding among U.S. Rosaceae breeders
Demonstration
breeders and
trainees
•
•
•
•
Overview of pedigree-based analysis
Use of the Pedimap software
Analysis of identity by descent
Getting started with the FlexQTL software
Feedback From RosBREED Events
Participant Ratings of 38 Topical Sessions
Response Options
Within the 2010-2012 Workshops:
No
Sort of
Yes
4%
17 %
79 %
Not enough
Just right
Too much
18 %
72 %
10 %
Not very
effective
OK
Very effective
10 %
47 %
44 %
Relevance of Session Topics:
“Is this topic relevant or important to your work?”
Length of Sessions:
“Amount of time spent on topic was: ”
Quality of Specific Sessions
“Was the presentation clear and effective?”
Note: Values are average response rates across 38 specific workshop sessions (weighted equally) from 4 workshops in which these questions were asked (PBA 2010 &
2011 and ASHS 2010 & 2012). Row percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Technical Level of Workshop as a Whole:
“The presentation level was: ”
Way too
basic
A little
too basic
Just right
A little too
advanced
Way too
advanced
1%
5%
68 %
25 %
2%
Note: Values are average response rates across all 5 RosBREED 2010-2012 workshops (weighted equally). Row percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Feedback From RosBREED Events
Average Participant Ratings
of the Overall Quality
of 2010-2012 Workshops:
Response Options
Strongly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Content was consistent with the
publicized description.
1%
1%
2%
10 %
43 %
43 %
Learning objectives were clearly stated.
1%
3%
5%
7%
38 %
46 %
Learning objectives were met.
1%
3%
3%
14 %
55 %
25 %
There was a balance between theory
and application.
1%
2%
9%
12 %
40 %
37 %
I gained new knowledge that is
applicable to my work.
1%
2%
2%
16 %
17 %
62 %
I plan to apply what I learned.
1%
3%
2%
8%
24 %
63 %
The handouts were useful.
1%
2%
3%
11 %
33 %
50 %
I would recommend this course to
others.
1%
1%
3%
8%
34 %
53 %
Note: Values are average response rates across all 5 RosBREED 2010-2012 workshops (weighted equally). Row percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Feedback From RosBREED Events
Participant Recommendations for
• Future educational events and technical assistance (format and content)
• Further development of software tools and online resources
• Further MAB research and development
Example:
Themes in recommendations for future R&D
from participants in the 2012 Pedigree-Based Analysis workshop
• Further development of analytic corrections for years, locations, and repetitions;
enhanced analysis of phenotypic data
• An improved interface and more complete documentation for the FlexQTL software
• More analysis of non-additive marker-locus-trait association (QTL) models
• Inclusion of dominant gene effects
• More measurement and analysis of gene by environment interactions
• More direct application of marker-assisted methods to breeding program decisions
Input From the U.S. Rosaceae Breeding Community
Study
Sample
Topics
In-depth interviews:
2011/2012
Rosaceae Breeder
Interviews
Random sample:
• Context and issues of breeding program capacity
25 percent of U.S. Rosaceae
breeders
• Attitude and expectations for marker-assisted breeding
7 RosBREED demonstration
breeders and 8 community
breeders
• Opportunities and challenges for MAB
• Current and planned uses of MAB
• Effectiveness of RosBREED
• Recommendations for research, development, outreach
2010
Rosaceae Breeding
Program Survey
Representative sample:
70 percent of U.S. Rosaceae
breeders &
62 percent of allied scientists
Baseline survey:
• Knowledge of marker-assisted methods
• Attitudes toward the application of markers
• Skills for using these tools and methods
• Actual use of markers in their work
• Recommendations for training and information resources
• Recommendations for further research and development
Upcoming 2013 Breeding Program
Survey will examine changes since 2010
What Have We Learned? Some Highlights:
There is wide variation in Rosaceae breeder preparedness for MAB
• Attitude and knowledge regarding the feasibility and value of MAB
• Knowledge and skills for applying MAB
• Intention to apply MAB: Whether or not, and When – soon vs. someday
• Intention to apply MAB: How – Desire to be personally involved vs. hire staff to do it vs.
work with collaborators or vendors
• Variation by crop, market, region: availability of “jewels” (validated marker-locus-trait
associations; QTLs), differing problems to be solved, support and resources available
RosBREED Response:
• Publicize “jewel” use as examples of success, feasibility
• Develop tools and approaches useful for a wide variety of breeding programs
• Provide tailored professional development and technical assistance to breeding programs
through small-group, crop-specific workshops and individual consultations
What Have We Learned? Some Highlights:
Breeding program economics are a challenge for MAB implementation
• Increasing costs for core breeding operations: basic personnel, equipment, field and
greenhouse operations
• Budgets are shrinking relative to costs for maintaining current operations; mere survival of
current breeding programs is an issue for many
• MAB requires additional personnel, training, equipment, collaborators, services – start-up
costs are a challenge
• Administrative and public support is often lacking – low awareness of the value of breeding
programs; poor infrastructure in many public programs and crops/market sectors for
marketing, publicity, recovering return on investment
RosBREED Response:
• Socio-economic research to help prioritize desired traits
• Low-cost tools, training opportunities, technical assistance, and collaboration opportunities
• Assistance identifying the most appropriate “next steps” toward MAB for breeding programs
What Have We Learned? Some Highlights:
Needed: More QTLs and greater assurance they will work
within specific breeding programs, lineages, environments
• Breeders want more QTLs (M-L-T associations) and more validation studies, especially
within their programs
• Breeders want more knowledge about gene by environment interactions in their crops and
environments
• Breeders want to be able to improve traits that are currently poorly defined and difficult to
phenotype
However
• Desire and program capacity to participate in QTL discovery or validation varies greatly
RosBREED Response:
• Leadership, tools, examples of how programs can participate in marker discovery and
validation studies efficiently, given their program circumstances
• Development of more analytic tools for gene by environment interactions
• Standardized tools for collecting, managing, sharing, analyzing phenotypic & genotypic data
What Have We Learned? Some Highlights:
Needed: Expansion to more crops and more traits
• Breeders appreciate the current focus on fruit quality traits
• Breeders want marker-assisted methods applied to additional crops and traits:
• Pest or disease resistance (or tolerance)
• High yield
• Phenological or adaptive traits (e.g. ability to grow in different climatic zones or adapt to changing or
broader climate and weather conditions; ability to produce multiple crops during a season)
• Suitability for machine harvesting
• Post-harvest traits
RosBREED Response:
• Tools, concepts, processes that can be applied to many crops and traits
• Extension, training opportunities for all Rosaceous crops, including programs that are
focusing on various kinds of traits
Plans for 2013
2013 Rosaceae Breeding Program Survey
Breeders + Allied Scientists
Contribute your observations and recommendations
for the future of marker-assisted breeding in Rosaceae
Coming to your email account in spring 2013!