[CEPCEB_All] Plants3D June 2021 newsletter

[Maureen Gateas]

Images not shown or remove content not shown ? To view the images, please
click "Display images below" or "load remote content" in the top of this
email located just below or above the subject line.

*The Plants3D NRT Program Newsletter*
June 2021
*Announcements*

   - Dr. Jennifer Brophy - Plants3D Friday, noon seminar
   - Community Member Highlight: Plants3D trainees Alex Valenzuela and Alex
   Borowsky. Read their sage advice on predoctoral fellowship grant writing.

*Friday, June 11th - noon, Plants3D Seminar*
"Synthetic genetic circuits to modify plant development."

*Dr. Jennifer Brophy Invited by the Plants3D trainees*
Dr. Jennifer Brophy received her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), where she worked in the group of Dr. Chris Voigt and
developed methods to tune gene expression in bacteria species. She did
a postdoc in the group of Dr. José Dinneny at Stanford University, where
she adapted her studies in bacteria to plants. In 2019, she was awarded a
Burroughs Wellcome Fund CASI grant entitled "Engineering organ development
using synthetic genetic regulation." This grant will help start her
independent research lab. Dr. Jennifer Brophy will join the Stanford
University Bioengineering Department as an Assistant Professor in September
2021.

Thanks to Alex Borowsky for extending the invitation.
More Plants3D Trainee invites in the fall.
Plants3D Community Profile



*Plants3D trainees Alex Valenzuela, Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship
Awardee and Alex Borowsky, NIFA Predoctoral Fellowship Awardee Sage Advice
on Grant Writing*


*Alex Valenzuela,* co-mentored by Linda Walling and Peter Atkinson,
received a *Ford Predoctoral Fellowship* and an honorable mention for his
NSF-GRFP application.

   1. *When did you write the grants? *

I applied to both the NSF-GRFP and Ford Predoctoral Fellowship during my
second year (Fall 2019). This was after I had taken the BPSC200 series. The
courses provided me with a good foundation on grant writing and motivated
me to start the process.

   1. *What lessons did you learn in terms of crafting the grant?*

The biggest lesson I learned was to *start early*. I began writing about 2
months before the application was due and still cut it very close.

   1. *What were the objectives of the grant, and how did you implement
   them in the grant?*

In the personal statement and statement of previous research, the main
objective was to show my commitment to students coming from groups
underrepresented in academia. I made sure to talk about my previous
experiences as someone from an underrepresented group, experiences working
with students from similar backgrounds, and how I would utilize resources
at UCR to continue to do so.

   1. *Did you learn from writing more than one proposal about when to
   start and how much time it takes, e.g., to write a grant*

The application required three 2-3 page essays. I spent about a week on
each first draft, then another few weeks editing it with the help of my
advisor. The essays need to be very short considering all the information
needed, so one of the biggest challenges was choosing what details to keep
and what to omit.

   1. *Did you have to include reference letters, and if so, who did you
   choose to be your reference (can say UG mentor or UCR faculty, but maybe
   indicate the number of mentors/faculty)?*

Both the Ford Fellowship and NSF-GRFP applications required 3 reference
letters. For both, I chose my two Co-PIs and my former supervisor from an
industry internship.

   1. *Do you think papers/posters from undergrad or graduate work were
   important in the completion?*

The Ford application includes previous papers/presentations in their
criteria for selection, so I think they played a role in the decision.
However, it was only one of the ~15 sections we were rated on, so I
wouldn’t say that someone without previous papers or posters should feel
deterred.

   1. *If you applied more than once, did you receive reviewer comments,
   and were these helpful?*

I applied only once, but some of the comments I received for the Ford
application suggested that my application could have been stronger if
I *included
a timeline for my proposed research* and more first-author publications
under my belt.

   1. *What is the basic science component of your research proposed in the
   grant you ultimately got awarded?*

My proposal looks at how plant resistances influence the secretion of
salivary proteins (effectors) in sap-sucking insects.

   1. *How quickly might your findings be applied (awarded grant)?*

It’s hard to say how quickly the main findings can be applied. Still, the
tools and techniques developed in the process could be used to enable
CRISPR-mediated genome editing in *Bemisia tabaci* (whiteflies).

   1. *Did your grant include basic to applied aims (awarded grant)?*

Neither application asked about applied aims.

*Alex Borowsky, *a member of the Bailey-Serres lab
<https://ucr.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=20258b97443c8dea22c17955f&id=d019425920&e=f8eca9c9de>
, recently received a *2021* *NIFA Predoctoral Fellowship* and an honorable
mention for his NSF-GRFP application.

   1. *When did you write the grants? *

I applied for every grant I was remotely eligible for!  I applied for the
NSF GRFP twice, as a senior undergraduate and as a second-year grad
student. I also applied unsuccessfully for a Hertz fellowship as a
first-year grad student and an NDSEG fellowship as a second year. Then I
applied for and got funding from Plants 3D. I was finally successful as a
third-year applying for extramural funding with the USDA NIFA Predoctoral
Fellowship, which you have to advance to candidacy before applying. One key
to success is to submit as many different applications as possible.

   1. *Did you take the BPSC200A/B series before writing the grant, and did
   you benefit from the BPSC200A/B series? *

Yes, these classes were definitely a good opportunity to practice writing.
The projects proposed in my grant applications (and my qualifying exam
proposal) were all evolutions of my plan for the remainder of my
dissertation work.

   1. *What lessons did you learn in terms of crafting the grant?*

I've learned a few important lessons: to make sure the significance and
novelty of your proposal are clear. These are the things that will get
reviewers excited more so than details about your experiments planned. To
make sure your aims are fully independent - I’ve been dinged on this by
reviewers even when explaining that one doesn’t require data from the
other. Even if they could appear to be interdependent, make sure it’s clear
you can do them without each other. If in doubt, make the “dubiously
dependent” aim Aim #1. If that doesn’t work, reframe the goals of your
aims. Especially for the NSF GRFP, where an (often deeply) personal
statement is required, identify a theme that highlights your personal
background and how that has led to your current goals. You obviously can’t
fabricate your experiences, but you can craft how you frame them and the
self-reflection included in the proposal.

Finally, I highly recommend making small, colorful pictographic
representations of your aims if you are allowed to include figures - it
makes it easier for reviewers to grasp your ideas when their eyes are
reading a large number of proposals.

   1. *What were the objectives of the grant, and how did you implement
   them in the grant?*

My most recent grant has three main aims: (1) defining and visualizing gene
networks controlling suberin biosynthesis in the rice exodermis; (2)
characterization of mutant and reporter lines for rice suberin biosynthesis
and regulation mutants to understand the role of suberin in drought
tolerance and identity hormonal signaling that influences suberin,  and
(3) developing tools to engineer spatiotemporal gene expression in plants.

   1. *Can you say a little bit more about the timing of grant writing? Did
   you learn from writing more than one proposal about when to start and how
   much time it takes, e.g., to write a grant?*

The best plan is to research what opportunities are available to you every
year and what opportunities will become available to you in the next year.
I read the RFA for the NIFA grant the year before I was eligible and made a
note to check back the next year. It’s important to start at least a month
or so in advance, especially if you need to ask for new letters of
recommendation. But these proposals can come together pretty quickly if you
adapt an older submission for each new one. The NIFA proposal took a while
because they ask for the same information as a full grant proposal! Not
just a personal and research statement like GRFP - lots of extra lists of
available equipment, data management plans, etc.

   1. *Did you have to include reference letters, and if so, who did you
   choose to be your reference?*

Yes, every proposal I’ve submitted has required this. My PI at UCR and my
undergraduate research mentor are consistent sources of letters, as well as
other UCR faculty that I’ve gotten to work with. I haven’t had a letter
from a professor outside my own institutions yet, but these people might be
great resources if you have strong relationships. You can also consider
professors that can speak to different parts of your experiences and
describe different facets of your work. For example, I included a letter
from Prof. Loralee Larios, with who I have worked on an outreach project.
Finally, you can look at the criteria for the award and emphasize to your
letter writers aspects they could try to highlight. Again, these might be
different for different letter writers.

   1. *Do you think papers/posters from undergrad or graduate work were
   important to get your grant?*

Absolutely! A frankly brutal piece of advice I’ve heard: “*Reviewers don’t
always know how to read, but they do know how to count*.” I had a second
author paper and a co-first author paper from undergrad, and a middle
author preprint from grad school when I was successful. I think it’s
possible to be successful with a limited publication record, but that’s
easier for undergrads or first-year grad students. It would be best to
discuss with your PI. It might be possible for you to tackle a smaller
project while first in the lab that can be published quickly to make
yourself more competitive for extramural funding in the future. Also, take
advantage of putting your work on biorxiv - it can demonstrate that you can
publish months before the work is in print. Posters and talks are also
super great, and you should present these when you have the opportunity,
even when you think you don’t have enough data. You can present a great
talk or poster that is mostly background and your ideas and plans. My
publications were from undergrad, and so posters and talks were my
opportunity to demonstrate progress in my dissertation research lab.  The
Corteva symposia are great - many of them have student speakers open
outside the university hosting. I presented my rotation project once at UC
Davis in my first year. Send in abstracts when you find opportunities!
Don’t worry about having enough data.

   1. *If you applied more than once, did you receive reviewer comments,
   and were these helpful?*

Reviewer comments can be demoralizing. Don’t let them get you down! We all
tend to fixate on negative feedback, but make sure you read closely and
highlight (really, use a highlighter on your reviews) the positive aspects
reviewers mentioned. It’s impossible to please everyone all the time, so if
you are resubmitting or submitting a similar proposal, don’t worry if one
reviewer didn’t like it. If two different reviewers both made the same
negative comment, that’s then something you should work on for the next
proposal.

   1. *What is the basic science component of your research proposed in the
   grant you ultimately got awarded? *

The basic science aspects in my proposal were mostly dealing with methods
to analyze gene regulatory networks and genetic dissection of gene function.

   1. *How quickly might your findings be applied (awarded grant)? *

I think this could take some time. My findings might inform crop breeding
or engineering, but getting those aspects executed could take several years
beyond my Ph.D.

   1. *Did your grant include basic to applied aims?*

The overall goal in my proposal was to inform crop engineering, and I hope
to start some engineering efforts before graduating from my Ph.D.


On the left Alex Borowsky and the right Alex Valenzuela
*Trainee Information and Tips*

Do you want your research or outreach to be featured on our website or in a
newsletter? Do you want changes in your bio? Do you have an idea for the
community to share? Do you want to feature your PI or a new paper?

Please email the Plants3D NRT Program Coordinator, Maureen Hummel, about
your accomplishments with "Plants3D product" as your subject.

Be sure to acknowledge your NSF funding on every abstract, poster, and
manuscript as follows:
"Funded by the US National Science Foundation, DBI-1922642".

*Program Contacts*
Julia Bailey-Serres,
University Distinguished Professor,
Botany and Plant Sciences
serres at ucr.edu
*
Ian Wheeldon,
Professor,
Chemical and Environmental Engineering
Ian.wheeldon at ucr.edu
*
Maureen Hummel,
Program Coordinator
maureenh at ucr.edu
Plants3D NRT Website
<https://ucr.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=20258b97443c8dea22c17955f&id=68a0151aaa&e=f8eca9c9de>
*Copyright © 2021 Plants3D NSF NRT *DBI-1922642*, All rights reserved.*
plants3d.ucr.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/cepceb_all/attachments/20210604/c01ccc7c/attachment-0001.html>