2001
NATIONAL DROSOPHILA BOARD MEETING
INTRODUCTIONS, APPROVAL
OF THE 2000 MINUTES |
2:00
- 2:10 |
MEETING FORMAT AND
ORGANIZATION: |
2:10
- 2:50 |
2001 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Mariana W., Mike G.) |
2:10 - 2:30 |
SANDLER
LECTURER COMMITTEE (Lynn Cooley) |
2:30 -
2:35 |
2002
PROGRAM COMMITTEE ( Ken B., Chuck L. ) |
2:35 -
2:40 |
Meeting Format & Workshop
Discussion |
2:40 - 2:50 |
MEETING SITE
SELECTION: |
2:50
- 3:15 |
GSA
COORDINATOR (Marsha Ryan) |
2:50 - 3:05 |
DISCUSSION ON 2004 MEETING SITE |
3:05 -
3:15 |
FLY BOARD
FINANCES: |
3:15
- 3:50 |
TREASURER
(Steve Mount) |
3:15 -
3:25 |
BOARD
DISCUSSION OF FINANCES, SPONSORS |
3:25 -
3:50 |
FLY BOARD
COMPOSITION |
4:00
- 4:15 |
ELECTION COMM
(Gary K.) AND
DISCUSSION |
4:00 -
4:15 |
COMMUNITY
RESOURCES: |
4:15
- 5:00 |
STOCK
CENTER ADVISORY COM. (Hugo
Bellen) |
4:15 -
4:20 |
BLOOMINGTON
STOCK CENTER (Kevin Cook) |
4:20 -
4:30 |
STOCK CENTERS: PAST, ONGOING, AND NEW |
4:30 -
4:50 |
DIS
(Jim Thompson) |
4:50 -
4:55 |
FLYBASE
(Bill Gelbart) |
4:55 -
5:00 |
PATENT
ISSUES IN KNOCKOUT PROJECT (ALLAN S.) |
5:00
- 5:30 |
SUPPORT
OF INT. CONG. GENETICS '03 (BATTERHAM) |
5:30
- 5:45 |
OTHER BUSINESS
|
5:45
- 6:00 |
DRAFT REPORTS
1. REPORT OF THE 2001 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Mariana
Wolfner, Mike Goldberg)
Registration - Preregistration for the meeting has been stronger than
anticipated. To date (as of
3/12/01), 1430 people (a record high!) have registered for the meeting; the
breakdown is provided below. An
additional 100 participants are expected to register at the meeting
itself. This represents a strong
increase in attendance relative to the prior year (994 preregistered plus 189
on-site registrants, for a total of 1183). We believe the increase is mostly the result of a more
popular venue (Washington, DC as opposed to Pittsburgh, PA), although it is
possible that the completion of the Drosophila genomic sequence may have attracted new scientists into
the field. The increase in
attendance has occurred in spite of several complaints about the price of rooms
at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.
Though the attractiveness of the venue seems to be more critical in the
formulation of decisions to come to the meeting than is the cost of the hotel
rooms, every effort should be made to keep lodging costs
affordable.
Regular/Advance
= 907 (GSA members = 563 Non-members = 344) + onsite 25 = 932
Students/Advance
= 477 (GSA members = 233 Non-members = 244)+ onsite 11 =
488
Complimentary
= 10
Total to
date = 1430
(onsite :
registrations received after the preregistration deadline)
Plenary
Speakers - Eleven plenary
speakers were invited; this is the same number as in previous years, and allows
time for the business meeting after the first plenary session. Plenary speakers
were chosen for their excellent science and for their ability to communicate in
talks. We made efforts to cover a
broad range of current topic areas, and to have junior as well as senior
investigators as plenary speakers. We also aimed for gender and geographical
balance, to the extent possible.
Gerry Rubin was invited to be the keynote speaker for the opening night,
and will give an overview of fly genomics past, present and future. An updated
List of Speakers is appended to this report that includes the year 2001 invited
speakers.
Abstract
Submission- Abstracts were solicited under twelve areas of primary
research interest. This is a
smaller list than that employed during the 2000 meeting. The list of 2001 topics is appended to the end of this
report, including the number of abstracts submitted in each area. In total, 966 requests were made
(versus 802 in 2000). There were 377 requests for
slide presentations for 144 available slots, allowing accommodation of
approximately 38% of the requests. In
contrast with previous years, we organized the descriptive keywords
hierarchically, so that the keywords matched the session categories. This hierarchy allowed us to achieve a
certain degree of internal organization for each session, and also allowed us
to apportion the number of speakers for each sub-topic roughly in proportion to
the number of abstracts submitted in each sub-field (see below).
We believe that the choice of
session topics worked generally quite well. The most popular submission topics were Pattern Formation
and Signal Transduction, but some other subjects such as Cell Division and the
Cytoskeleton, Gene Regulation, and Neural Development were not far behind. We were able to deal with the higher
numbers of submissions in these areas simply by offering two slide presentation
sessions for these topics as opposed to one session for the less heavily
enrolled subject areas. Two
areas - Immune System and Apoptosis, and Techniques and Genomics - had a
disproportionately small percentage of the total abstracts. This reflects to a large
extent the fact
that workshops with strong overlaps for these subjects were independently
organized, a matter we discuss in more detail below. With the exception of these last two topic areas (which were
particular favorable to submitters), it appears that abstracts competing for
space in the various slide sessions had a roughly equal chance to be
selected.
Slide
Sessions - We selected abstracts for slide sessions from among the pool of
abstracts requesting such consideration using the primary criterion of
scientific interest. However, we
felt strongly that two secondary criteria were also of importance. First, we tried to spread out the
selected presentations among labs.
We were averse to having more than one slide presentations chosen from
any one laboratory, although in a few cases two selections from the same group
were unavoidable. Second, we
attempted to eliminate abstracts for which essentially the same subject from
the same laboratory had been selected for a slide presentation in the previous
year.
Employment
of these secondary criteria was in our experience quite successful. This spread the benefits of speaking to
as many laboratories as possible, and we did not encounter any situation in
which a laboratory selected for one slide presentation expressed anger at not
being selected for another presentation. We recommend that in future years, abstract
submissions should have a field indicating the identity of the principal
investigator so that abstracts could be sorted according to
laboratory. This step would
simplify the utilization of these secondary criteria.
Two
other innovations concerning the slide sessions bear brief mention. First, for session chairs we chose, as
much as possible, junior faculty, particularly those we knew to be entering the
time of their tenure decisions. In
some cases, the abstracts of these junior faculty had not been chosen for a
slide presentation. This
innovation appeared to be much appreciated by the session chair
appointees. Second, at the time we
selected abstracts for the slide sessions, we also chose runner-ups who could
be rapidly appointed as replacements if a previously chosen speaker was unable
to attend. This approach saved us
considerable time because there were three cases in which replacements were
required.
Workshops - There were 10 workshops organized. For the Techniques Workshop, we
identified an ideal coordinator (Ken Burtis) and asked him in advance if he
would be the organizer. The other
9 workshops were proposed by the individuals listed as organizer in the
appendix. It should be noted that,
for the first time to our knowledge, the Ecdysone Workshop was linked to the
meeting and included in the Program.
Issues related to the workshops were by far the most time-consuming
and vexing problems we encountered.
(1) The workshops have something of a split personality, due to
the fact that the workshops were independently organized. In particular, some workshops are
unrelated to the material in any of the regular sessions (such as the Genetics
of Non-Drosophilid Insects, or Drosophila Research at Primarily Undergraduate
Institutions), while other workshops are essentially carbon copies of regular
sessions (examples include the workshops on Techniques, DNA Microarrays, RNA
processing, Hematapoeisis/Cellular Immunity, and Fate Changes and Asymmetric
Cell Divisions). The latter group
of workshops presents many difficulties.
Should abstracts be submitted to the regular session or to the workshop
or both? How are speakers
apportioned between sessions and the corresponding workshops? (In many cases, this was settled by
some time-consuming haggling between ourselves and the workshop
organizers.) How should abstracts
for workshops be treated in the meeting program, given that abstracts selected
for slide sessions were removed from the part of the program listing abstracts
for poster presentations?
The
organizers of the 2000 Drosophila Conference strongly recommended that the Conference maintain a highly visible techniques
workshop which will allow selection of critical development for Drosophila
research. We agree that Techniques
are in many ways now the most essential component of the meeting, and hence we
scheduled the Techniques Workshop as a standalone, with no other concurrent
workshops. However, we encountered
problems because we also arranged for a Techniques slide session and permitted
an independent Microarrays Workshop to be organized as well. This trio caused the greatest
coordination difficulties. Future organizers should consider whether a slide session
is warranted in addition to a Workshop.
Perhaps the Workshop could be limited only to the talks of most general
interest, while the slide session could address more detailed issues. In any event, better early planning
should minimize such problems.
(2)
Following the recommendations
of last year's committee, we attempted to organize the workshops early so to
allow publication of the schedule of speakers (with accompanying abstracts) in
the program book. This strategy
was intended to increase the visibility of the workshops among
participants. Unfortunately, only
a few proposals were received as the deadline neared; one was for a workshop on
Non-Drosophilid Insects, which was to be coupled to an independent companion
meeting on Nasonia. We sent a
reminder through Flybase requesting Workshop proposals. Eventually
12 proposals (including that for Ecdysone) were received but three were
rejected: two were not fully formulated or novel and one arrived late and
overlapped with an accepted proposal.
Workshop moderators had very different ideas of how
"pre-packaged" their workshops should be.
In some cases, the moderators took pains to choose their speakers and
solicit abstracts from them at an early stage. In other cases, the moderators wanted to choose their
speakers at the last minute, or from the "platform rejects", so in
several cases we do not as yet know who will be speaking at such workshops. We
emphasized to the organizers that Workshops are to be informal discussions, not
"platform substitutes" but we are not certain how well this will be
enforced.
(3)
The combination of situations
(1) and (2) above created an administrative nightmare. In some cases, the organizers of the
workshops did not know that their speakers had submitted abstracts for the
slide sessions. Often, we had no
knowledge about whether speakers we were considering for slide sessions were
delivering essentially the same talk at a workshop. Some workshops will appear in the meeting Program in a
format complete with abstracts, others will be announced only in a very sketchy
manner. The negotiations between
ourselves and the workshop organizers were in some cases very protracted,
truncating the time available to react to decisions. As a result, some abstracts ended up appearing in two places
in the Program (under the workshop and the poster session), though this was not
a problem for abstracts chosen for slide presentations since we eliminated all
overlaps prior to selection.
These problems can be dealt with in several possible ways. (a) Workshops could be restricted to topics that do not obviously overlap with slide sessions. This would be the easiest solution administratively. (b) Workshops should be organized - even to the extent of selecting speakers - at a very early stage, prior to the submission of abstracts for platform sessions, so that the participants in the workshops can be easily identified and tracked. This would facilitate preparation of the Program. (c) Strict rules could be instituted so that workshop participants do not submit abstracts on the same topic to the general meeting. (d) Potentially, a separate area of the Abstract submission Website should be made for Workshop submissions. (e) Other than choosing the Workshops and listing the times and rooms, the meeting organizers should play no role in this matter. This would simplify the lives of the organizers, but would prevent efforts to integrate the Workshops into the meeting and could foster abuses (such as having the same talk delivered in a slide session and Workshop).
Programmatic Changes
- Several
changes were made to the general format of the program.
A. The
organizing committee for the 2000 meeting complained that, because the abstract
submission date (set by the GSA) was originally November 8, the Drosophila
community was not prepared and there was a poor response. The deadline for abstract submission
for the 2000 meeting was then extended by one week, which
substantially improved
submission numbers. For the 2001
meeting, the submission deadline was considerably later (November 27). We encountered problems in that the
FASEB Website crashed over the Thanksgiving weekend, and there was no way for
us to access or fix the site because this was FASEB's property. GSA immediately contacted FASEB for
help and also extended the abstract deadline to compensate. In any event, the later submission
deadline caused no major problems.
The committee's time for choosing slide presentations was shortened, but
we were able to complete the selection process within a week. We thus believe later deadlines are
advantageous in terms of allowing sufficient time for community
response, although future organizers should be aware that they will
spend Christmas week sorting abstracts.
B. In 2000,
authors were asked to choose between slide only, slide or poster, poster only
for the presentation of their abstracts.
Because that system was reported to introduce some confusion, we went
back to the simpler, older system in which authors could indicate slide or
poster. Those abstracts that were
self-nominated for slide presentation but that were not chosen were
automatically put into poster sessions.
We believe this system worked well, except for some difficulties
introduced by the workshops that were described above. We anticipate that the large majority
of the abstracts that were not selected for talks will appear as posters at the
meeting, but this remains to be seen.
C. In contrast
with previous years, we made efforts to obtain abstracts for the plenary talks
and workshops and to include these in the meeting's Program. These efforts worked very well for the
plenary talks, and we believe the inclusion of plenary abstracts helps
advertise the plenary talks and makes the Program more complete. However, as described above, our
attempts to include workshop abstracts engendered some
problems.
D. At the
urging of Laurie Tompkins, the program director in Genetics and Developmental
Biology at NIH/GM, we initiated a lunch meeting that would bring together
Drosophila investigators and several program directors at the NSF and at NIH
institutes who are interested in funding fly grants. Dr. Tompkins assumed most of the responsibility for
organizing this session. The
session could not be made into a workshop because the NSF/NIH program directors
wanted to meet with us during the day.
Although
we have strong hopes that this lunch will be a high point of the meeting, it
remains to be seen how useful or well-attended the session will prove in
reality. One worry is logistical:
we could find no simple way to make sure that participants in this
"lunch" will actually find something to eat. The hotel does not allow external
caterers to bring food into the meeting venue, and the hotel was unable to come
up with an inexpensive lunch menu themselves. As a result, participants will have to leave the hotel and
personally bring bag lunches back; we allotted insufficient time to allow
people to do so. In the future, if
participants find this lunch to be of utility, it may be advantageous to make
this meeting with NSF/NIH program directors into a workshop. The issue may in any case be moot
because involvement of the NSF/NIH people was predicated on a meeting venue of
Washington DC.
E. In this
meeting, complimentary hotel rooms were reserved -- as traditionally -- for GSA
personnel, the two major organizers (who have traditionally been felt to
deserve something for their efforts, and we agree!), and foreign scientists
(mostly from Russia) who could not afford the rooms. We
regret that, in contrast to previous years, we were unable to give
complimentary rooms for distinguished figures from the Old Guard (like Mel
Green or Dan Lindsley). We felt
that needy foreign scientists were a higher priority, and that the Old Guard
would be more able to afford rooms.
Several of the needy cases had been selected for slide presentations
(unbeknownst in terms of need), so the comp rooms were essential for the
meeting program. We did not
encounter any complaints as a result of this policy, and offers of comp rooms
were much appreciated by the foreign Drosophilists. Insofar as we know, registration fees were waived for all
participants who asked on the basis of serious financial need. We recommend that this policy be
continued.
Future Considerations and
Organization of the Meeting -
A. A major
problem this year, and one that will continue to increase in severity over
time, is the necessity for arranging computer-assisted A/V equipment (for
movies and PowerPoint presentations).
It is extremely expensive to rent such equipment; these costs are even
higher because rental companies make rules that maximize our costs (like not
allowing movement of projection equipment from one room to another). Another aspect of this problem is the
issue of compatibility between various kinds of computers and projectors. We hope such difficulties will be
solved in the speaker ready rooms, but this remains to be seen. We see only two possible
solutions. The meeting either
needs to raise funds to cover these expenses (see below), or the fly board
should purchase A/V and computer equipment that could be used on site. The advantages of the latter solution
are the savings in the long run, and the possibility to ask authors to forward
CDs, Zip disks, or electronic files prior to the meeting to avoid last-minute
compatibility hassles. The
disadvantages are the high up-front capital costs, and the possibility that the
equipment purchased will soon go out of date.
B. We understood
that at last year's Fly Board meeting it was decided that outside corporate (or
NIH/NSF?) sponsorship was worth soliciting, but that this was the
responsibility of the Fly Board.
We understand that there may have been concern about favoritism shown to
one particular company. To our
knowledge, no corporate sponsorship was solicited for this year's
meeting,
though we understand that one pharmaceutical company inquired about possible
support and may be providing meeting participants with briefcases. [In
addition, the organizers of the Ecdysone Workshop may have obtained sponsorship
from NE Biolabs (where both are employed) for the Ecdysone Workshop's coffee
break. This was out of our purview
so we don't know the details.] It
is recommended that the Board establish a procedure so that the next organizing
committee can pursue company or government sponsorship. These moneys would go a long
way to paying
the cost of renting the projection equipment and perhaps perhaps even provide
some coffee breaks. Outside
support would also allow the possibility of providing some funds to help
indigent applicants, to pay speakers' expenses, or to defray cost
overruns.
C. We believe
that there are some issues concerning the interactions between the organizers
and the GSA that could be improved.
First, we found out only after most of our work was completed that the
meeting is billed for everything we asked the GSA to do. Many of our requests for help from
GSA thus added to the meeting costs, unbeknownst to us and in some cases
unnecessarily. Future
organizers should be aware of this fact from the outset. Second, many inefficiencies of time
were introduced by a constant flow of communication between ourselves, GSA, the
Fly Board, and individual participants.
Not all of this communication was strictly necessary, and could have
been avoided by some guidelines.
Third, the deadlines we were given by GSA were not always observed by
them in reality. These
unnecessarily early deadlines caused us some serious time crunches when a few
days leeway was in fact possible and would have been greatly
appreciated. Future
organizers need to be aware that GSA arranges many meetings in addition to the
fly meeting, so that some items are scheduled around their calendar. These points are not in any way meant
to denigrate the high degree of professionalism from Marsha Ryan and others at
GSA, who did an excellent job overall and whose job is made difficult by having
to work with new, novice organizers each year. We do however wish to suggest that certain steps could be
taken to streamline the communication:
(1) Complimentary rooms - Participants wishing
complimentary rooms or a waiver of the registration costs should be directed to
send these requests by a certain date (say two months before the meeting) to a
specific e-mail address set aside for this purpose either by one of the
organizers or by GSA (or alternatively with a common subject heading). Then all of these requests could be
considered at the same time, rather than piecemeal as has been done
to date.
(2) Communications with authors - Many times, we had to
forward e-mail messages to GSA so that they could be resent to authors. This was simply because we did not have
the e-mail addresses of the authors available to us. Such communications would be made more efficient if each
abstract indicated the senior author/PI and the corresponding e-mail
address. As discussed above, it
would be advantageous if abstracts were also sorted by senior author/PI so that
determinations could more easily be made about the number of abstracts accepted
for slide presentations from each lab.
D. The situation
relative to T-shirts for the meeting should be clarified. It did not become clear until a late
stage of the process that the organizer in charge of the T-shirts (M.L.
Goldberg) was expected by GSA to be responsible for all aspects of
this project,
including personally fronting all the money to buy the T-shirts and personally
selling these shirts at the meeting.
This makes little sense, particularly given that T-shirt sales could be
a substantial source of income for the meeting. A small amount of help from the Fly Board (making
the original
purchases and obtaining people to sell the shirts) could create a profit center
that would help the meeting in the future.
E. Given that
hotel expenses are likely to be high in most of the venues selected in future
years, we believe the meeting Website should have a central location to
facilitate the finding of roommates willing to split costs. In past years, people have been able to
find roommates through postings on Dros.Bionet, but you have to know where to
look; some people also emailed the organizers for help in finding
roommates. We did what we could,
which was limited. Posting a site,
or at least a link, as part of the official meeting page would help many people
handle the high prices of hotel rooms.
GSA or the organizers do not have to put people together themselves,
just make it easy to access a location that participants can use
themselves.
F. In the
future, we recommend that the registration form note that undergraduates should
sign up in the "graduate student" category (unless the organizers
wish to make a separate category; we think this is fine but unnecessary). This would avoid the several calls to
the organizers either asking how one's undergrads should sign up, or informing
the organizers that it was wrong to exclude undergraduates.
G. Although
organizers of the previous two flymeetings were generous with their time and
suggestions, the learning process for us was somewhat painful. There are many things that one just
does not know or anticipate in organizing such a meeting, so the
"wheel" has to be reinvented annually. To remedy this, we (the organizers of the 2001 meeting) are
compiling a "how-to" manual, which we will give to the next
organizers within the next few months.
It will be helpful if the FlyBoard could include updated information
about decisions reached in response to this Report.
H. Additional details raised by the y2k organizers:
(a) Mailing abstract books. We stayed with last year's practice.
(b) The schedule of opening night events. We kept the shorter Sandler and Keynote talk times, as initiated last year in response to requests to allow enough time for a mixer.
(c) We notified all plenary speakers and session Chairs that the conference does not have funds to defray any of their costs. We did not receive any complaints about this, but we recommend that future organizers retain this practice to avoid potential problems. We offered the Keynote Speaker (Gerry Rubin) travel and a comp room, but he graciously and generously declined both. The NIH/NSF program directors who will be coming only for an hour will be issued comp. badges.
I. Updated
Plenary Speaker list
Susan Abmayr
1995
Kathryn Anderson
1999
Deborah Andrew
1997
Chip Aquadro
1994
Spyros Artavanis
1994
Bruce Baker
1996
Utpal Banerjee
1997
Amy Bejsovec
2000
Phil Beachy
1998
Hugo Bellen
1997
Celeste Berg
1994
Marianne Bienz
1996
Seth Blair
1997
Nancy Bonini
2000
Juan Botas
1999
Andrea Brand
2001
Vivian Budnik
2000
Ross Cagan
1998
John Carlson
1999
Sean Carroll
1995
Tom Cline
2000
Claire Cronmiller
1995
Ilan Davis
2001
Rob Denell
1999
Michael Dickinson
1995
Chris Doe
1996
Ian Duncan
2001
Bruce Edgar
1997
Anne Ephrussi
2001
Martin Feder
1998
Janice Fischer
1998
Bill Gelbart
1994
Pam Geyer
1996
David Glover
2000
Kent Golic
2001
Iswar Hariharan
1998
Dan Hartl
2001
Scott Hawley
2001
Tom Hayes
1995
Ulrike Heberlein
1996
Ulrike Heberlein
1998
Martin Heisenberb
1998
Dave Hogness
1999
Joan Hooper
1995
Wayne Johnson
2000
Thom Kaufman
2001
Rebecca Kellum
1999
Christian Klambt
1998
Mitzi Kuroda
1997
Paul Lasko
1999
Cathy Laurie
1997
Maria Leptin
1994
Bob Levis
1997
Haifan Lin
1995
Susan Lindquist
2000
John Lis
2001
Dennis McKearin
1996
Mike McKeown
1996
Jon Minden
1999
Roel Nusse
1997
David O'Brochta
1997
Terry Orr-Weaver
1996
Mark Peifer
1997
Trudy MacKay
2000
Nipam Patel
2000
Norbert Perrimon
1999
Leslie Pick
1994
M. Ramaswami
2001
Pernille Rorth
1995
Gerry Rubin
1998
Gerry Rubin
2001
Hannele Ruohola-Baker
1999
Helen Salz
1994
Babis Savakis
1995
Paul Schedl
1998
Gerold Schubiger
1996
John Sedat
2000
Amita Sehgal
1996
Allen Shearn
1994
Marla Sokolowski
1998
Ruth Steward
1996
Bill Sullivan
1996
John Sved
1997
John Tamkun
2000
Barbara Taylor
1996
Bill Theurkauf
1994
Tim Tully
1995
Barbara Wakimoto
2001
Steve Wasserman
1996
Kristi Wharton
1994
Eric Wieschaus
1996
Ting Wu
1997
Tian Xu
1997
Susan Zusman
1998
II. Areas of Primary Research
Interest
|
Slide Request |
Poster |
Total |
Cell Division and
Cytoskeleton |
48 |
61 |
109 |
Chromosome Structure and
Function |
28 |
55 |
83 |
Gene
Regulation |
33 |
61 |
94 |
Signal
Transduction |
42 |
79 |
121 |
Pattern
Formation |
56 |
67 |
123 |
Reproduction |
26 |
53 |
79 |
Organogenesis
|
22 |
34 |
56 |
Neural
Development |
26 |
66 |
92 |
Neural Physiology and
Behavior |
28 |
39 |
67 |
Evolution |
29 |
33 |
62 |
Immune System and
Apoptosis |
19 |
16 |
35 |
Techniques and
Genomics |
20 |
23 |
43 |
III. Keywords
01
Cell Division and cytoskeleton
a. mitosis, b. meiosis, c. checkpoint, d. kinase/phosphatase/cyclin, e. developmental modulation, f. centrosome, g. kinetochores and cohesion, h. spindles and motors, i. cytokinesis, j. cytoskeleton, k. other
02 Chromosome Structure and Function, a. chromatin and remodeling complexes, b. insulators/boundary elements, c. polycomb/trithorax complexes, d. position effect variegation, e. dosage compensation, f. telomere, g. centromere, h. other
03 Gene regulation, core promoters and general transcription factors, enhancers, activators/coactivators, repressors/corepressors, transcription elongation, splicing, and its regulation, RNA modification and editing, translational control, RNA localization, other
04 Signal transduction, kinase/phosphatase, cell-cell communication, G protein, receptor-ligand, tumorigenesis, protease, secondary messenger, downstream cascades and targets, other
05 Pattern formation, segmentation, homeotics, axes, compartments and boundaries, cell migration and motility, cell polarity, commitment, imaginal disk derivatives, non-Drosophila, other
06 Reproduction, oogenesis (germ line), oogenesis (soma), spermatogenesis, pre-gametogenic germ cell development, sex determination (germ line), sex determination (soma), sex-specific traits and molecules, fertilization, other
07 Organogenesis, endodermal derivatives, mesodermal
derivatives (muscle), mesodermal derivatives (non-muscle), ectodermal
derivatives (non-neural), extracellular matrix/cell adhesion, non-Drosophila,
other
08 Neural Development, axon guidance, synaptogenesis, neuronal specification, programmed cell death, glia, hormonal control, CNS, Sensory, Postembryonic, other
09 Neural Physiology and Behavior, sensory, synapse, neurotransmitter/neuropeptides, ion channels, homeostasis , learning/memory, courtship and mating, rhythms , hormones, other
10 Evolution, a. genome evolution, b. population variation, c. evolution and development, d. quantitative traits, e. speciation, f. phylogenetics
11 Immune system and Apoptosis, cellular immunity, humoral immunity, caspases, death mutants/genes, iaps, transcriptional regulation, other
12 Techniques and genomics, microarrays, transformation, RNAi, microscopy, gene disruption and targeting, computational analyses, mutational screens, molecular interactions, other
IV.
Workshops.
Workshop
Title |
Moderator |
|
|
Ecdysone
Workshop |
Maina,
Claude Tzertzinis,
George |
Drosophila Research at Primarily
Undergraduate Institutions |
Hales,
Karen McLean,
Janna Pokrywka,
Nancy Reynolds, Elaine
|
Signaling Through Heterotrimeric
G Proteins |
Forte,
Michael |
Distribution, Structure and
Function of Cytonemes and Filopodia in Drosophila Tissue
|
Kornberg,
Thomas Chiba,
Akira |
Techniques |
Burtis,
Ken |
Genetics of Non-Drosophilid
Insects |
Pultz, Mary
Anne Werren, John
|
DNA
Microarrays |
Michelson,
Alan |
Fate Choices and Asymmetric Cell
Divisions |
Giangrande,
Angela |
Hematopoiesis/Cellular
Immunity |
Govind,
Shubha Meister, Marie
|
RNA Processing
|
Salz,
Helen |
2.
REPORT OF THE SANDLER LECTURER COMMITTEE (Lynn
Cooley)
Committee members:
Lynn Cooley (chair), Haig Keshishian, Susan Parkhurst, Laurel Raftery, Bill Saxton (2000 chair)
Applications (thesis abstract, student's CV, Letter of
support from Advisor):
Applicant (advisor)
Aaron Bowman (Larry Goldstein), Russell Collins (Jessica Treisman), Michael Palladino (Rob Reenan)
Sergei Prokopenko (Hugo Bellen), James Wilhelm (Ron Vale), Yihong Ye (Mark Fortini)
Initial round of selection:
Each member of the committee ranked the applicants from 1 to 6 based on the quality and impact of the research and the independence of the applicant. Three of the six applicants were ranked high on everyone's list. Those three (Wilhelm, Palladino and Ye) were asked to send me five copies of their completed thesis, which I distributed to the committee. One of the theses arrived on CD ROMs with printouts of the figures. All but one committee member liked that format.
Final round of selection:
Each member of the committee read the theses and ranked the three finalists. James Wilhelm was everyone's first choice. Because there were no major disagreements during both phases of the selection process, the committee was able to correspond by email with no conference calls necessary.
The Award:
Opening talk of the Drosophila Research Conference March 21, 2001.
Publication of thesis as a monograph by Kluwer Academic Publishers (Joann.Tracy@wkap.com was the contact)
Sandler Award Plaque
Lifetime membership in the GSA
All expenses to attend the meeting
Expenses:
I arranged for 10 plaques to be made by Brinks Trophy Shop in Santa Cruz, CA (831-426-2505; staff@brinkstrophies.com). Bill Sullivan laid the groundwork for this last year. Marsha Ryan at the GSA paid for the plaques ($690.00 total) and she has all the information on how to contact them. For the next nine years, the selection committee simply needs to contact Brinks Trophy so that the name of the winner and the date of the award can be silk-screened on one of the plaques. This has already been paid for. The only additional cost will be shipping of the completed plaque to the committee chair.
Outstanding expenses:
$16.00 - Shipping of plaque to Lynn Cooley
$122.25 - Shipping to committee members (Lynn Cooley)
3. REPORT OF THE GSA COORDINATOR (Marsha
Ryan)
42ND ANNUAL DROSOPHILA RESEARCH CONFERENCE
Advance registrations for the 2001are a record high at 1430, compared to lowest attendance in 8 years in Pittsburgh 2000 with only 1183 registrants. It is expected that another 50-100 people will register on-site in 2001. Hotel room rates for singles and doubles in 2001 ($191 single, $214 double) were significantly higher than in 2000 ($115 single, $127 double). This would indicate that room cost is less important to attendance than having the meeting located in a major city, though the US Air worker strike before and during the Pittsburgh meeting did have some impact, but it is impossible to know just how much. Room pickup on peak night in Washington is 620 at the Marriott and 94 at the Omni, totaling 714. Basically, this equals pick-up peak night in Pittsburgh, which indicates that more people purchased single rooms at the lower rates in Pittsburgh and more people doubled or tripled-up in Washington to keep their room cost down.
The number of exhibits sold this year is two more than last year. Represented are 13 commercial companies and one not-for-profit organization in a total of 14 spaces.
Geographic distribution statistics for pre-registrants follow:
BY COUNTRY:
ARGENTINA
1
AUSTRALIA
10
AUSTRIA
4
BRAZIL 5
CANADA
61
DENMARK
2
FRANCE
37
GERMANY
37
INDIA
1
ISRAEL
8
ITALY
3
JAPAN
28
KOREA
3
MEXICO
7
NETHERLANDS
3
PORTUGAL
2
REP.OF CHINA 5
RUSSIA
6
SLOVAKIA
1
SPAIN
4
SWEDEN
8
SWITZERLAND
24
TAIWAN
8
UK
67
TOTAL FOREIGN 335 from 25
countries
BY
STATE:
ALABAMA
12
ARIZONA
11
CALIFORNIA 159
COLORADO
6
CONNECTICUT
33
DIST COLUMBIA DC 1
FLORIDA
2
GEORGIA
18
HAWAII
2
IDAHO
1
ILLINOIS
33
INDIANA
25
IOWA
17
KANSAS
7
KENTUCKY
10
LOUISIANA
2
MARYLAND
89
MASSACHUSETTS 115
MICHIGAN
20
MINNESOTA
14
MISSOURI
29
MONTANA
2
NEBRASKA
3
NEVADA
2
NEW HAMPSHIRE 4
NEW JERSEY 57
NEW MEXICO 6
NEW YORK
100
NORTH CAROLINA 58
NORTH DAKOTA
1
OHIO
24
OKLAHOMA
2
OREGON
13
PENNSYLVANIA
63
PUERTO RICO 3
RHODE ISLAND
9
SOUTH CAROLINA 2
TENNESSEE
4
TEXAS 59
UTAH
18
VERMONT
2
VIRGINIA
15
WASHINGTON 27
WISCONSIN
15
TOTAL USA
1,095 from 44 states
2002 - 43RD ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MARCH 6-10 - TOWN & COUNTRY HOTEL, SAN DIEGO, CA
The Board selected the Town & Country Hotel in San Diego, as the venue for the 2002 conference. Room rates guaranteed in the contract range from $135-155 single/double per night. The Board should note that the Town & Country conference facilities have undergone a multi-million dollar renovation, so many of the less attractive features some may remember from 1996 have been updated. Significant improvements and upgrades of the grounds surrounding the conference facilities and hotel room buildings also have been made. Sleeping rooms have been updated with new paint, carpeting and cosmetic fixtures. Additionally, to add to the improvements, the San Diego Trolley has been up and running successfully for several years now, making outings to restaurants such as in Old Town San Diego an easy and inexpensive trip.
The Board, and program chairs, should note that because the
meeting dates are approximately 2 weeks earlier, all major deadlines will need
to be moved ahead. GSA meetings, computer and publications staff had barely
enough time to complete the Program book to final stage and get it printed in
time to mail it only 2 weeks in advance in 2001. Three weeks advance time to
guarantee that it is freighted and delivered to the Town & Country in time
will be required. Therefore, the whole timeline schedule that will be presented
to the incoming program chairs will reflect a total of 3 weeks difference from
the 2001 timeline. This will require the deadline for abstracts to be moved
from Monday, November 27, in 2000, to Monday, November 5 in 2001. This change
and the reasons for it should be promoted to registrants during the 2001
meeting.
2003 - 44TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MARCH 5-9 - SHERATON CHICAGO HOTEL & TOWERS
In 2000, the Board agreed upon Chicago and the Sheraton for the 2003 site. Rates will be finalized one year in advance, but will fall in the same range as the 2001 rates in Washington, D.C.
2004 - 45TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The Board requested proposals for 2004 from Washington, DC, Philadelphia, PA and Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Much information has been presented, but some details of each proposal are still outstanding, mainly exact contract terms and for Montreal, see asterisked note.
WASHINGTON, DC
Omni Shoreham Hotel (site of 1998 Drosophila Conference)
Space: All space needed is available in hotel and can accommodate all posters at once. Posters set up in parking garage w/unstated charge for use. Note, however, that we did not pay for use of space in 1998 and could no doubt negotiate same deal for 2004.
Dates: March 31-April 4 (no holidays, regular Wed-Sunday pattern)
Room Rates: Approx. $240 sgl/dbl
2001 Coffee Cost per Gal: $50++ (10% tax + 18% gratuity)
2001 Soda each: $3++ (10% tax + 18% gratuity)
Marriott Wardman Park Hotel
Space: Same as we're using in 2001 - All in hotel can accommodate all posters at once. Posters go in exhibit space with a charge this year of $2000 for use of space. Hopefully could negotiate the same deal for 2004.
Dates: March 31-April 4 (no holidays, regular Wed-Sun pattern)
Rates: $240 sgl $250 dbl
2001 Coffee Cost per Gal: $50++ (10% tax + 18% gratuity)
2001 Soda each: $3++ (10% tax + 18% gratuity)
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Philadelphia Marriott Hotel (Located downtown, connected to convention center and Market Place)
Space: Space needed is available in hotel, but third room for slide breakouts is not well proportioned and may not be adequate too small. Poster area will be tight and some posters may have to be placed in pre-function area, or posters would need to be split in half with 1st half up Thurs-Fri Afternoon, and 2nd half up Fri night-Saturday.
Dates: March 10-14 (no holidays, regular Wed-Sun pattern)
Rates: $170 sgl $185 dbl
2001 Coffee Cost per Gal: $42++ (7% tax + 20% gratuity)
2001 Soda each: $2.75++ (7% tax + 20% gratuity)
MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA
Requires 2 hotels:
Delta Centre Hotel (Primary hotel - located downtown, 2 blocks from convention center)
*Rates: $115 sgl/dbl (IN USD)
Holiday Inn (Overflow hotel - located downtown, across the street from convention center)
Rates in USD: $100* sgl/dbl (IN USD)
Dates: March 27-30 (different arrival/departure--Sat-Tues)
2001 Coffee Cost per Gal: $25++ (14% tax + 18% gratuity)
2001 Soda each: $1.65++ (14% tax + 18% gratuity)
Space: Palais des Congres de Montreal - All meeting, poster, and exhibit space in convention center. Rooms are all adequate and poster area is spacious.
*NOTE: There is a $46,000-48,000 USD rental charge for use
of space at the center. I told The Montreal Convention and Visitors Bureau that
we do not/cannot pay rent charges. They are currently trying to work out a deal
between hotels and center for rent to be paid by adding $20 per night per room
to the above rates. This additional "collection" then would be paid back to the
Center by the hotels. This means actual rates including Center rent would be about $120-$135 per night, plus $2/night
lodging tax, GST @ 7% plus 7.5% provincial tax, or a total of about $140-$157
USD.
4. REPORT OF THE TREASURER (Steve Mount)
A.
ANNUAL DROSOPHILA CONFERENCE INCOME/EXPENSE
2001
ACTUAL
PROJECTIONS
2000
Revenue
Registration $250,145 $167,005
Exhibit Fees (8 @ $700) 13,300 8,350
Mailing Fees 4,443 1,850
Miscellaneous
100
4,995 1
Total Income $267,988 $182,200
Expenditures
Fixed
Expenses:
Hotel and Travel-Staff and others 2,250 $ 5,239
Printing (call and program) 30,000 25,205
Mailing, addressing, shipping, freight 9,500 8,902
Telephone - FlyBase room computer lines 2,700 2,542
Telephone and fax - other 600 429
Office Supplies (badges, signs, misc.) 900 577
Projection/audio-visuals/electrical
32,800
28,153 4
Sound 2,000
Space rental (poster and exhibit hall space) 4,000
Equipment,
carpeting, masking, poster boards
37,500
36,206 5
Contracted Services (reg. desk, security, nurse) 4,000 3,507
Computer Services 10,900 2 9,571 2
Insurance Expense 750 740
Legal fees 320
Salaries/Wages/taxes/benefits 71,431 3 68,030
Variable Expenses:
Catering - Reception and coffee breaks 61,300 45,705
Catering - Fly Board and Fly Base 3,700 3,221
Credit card/bank fees 5,800 4,453
Miscellaneous Expense 350 300
Total Expenditures $280,481 $243,100
NET REVENUE(EXPENSE) ($ 12,493) ($60,900)
Footnotes:
1. From Bellevue, WA carpet expense.
2. Web design, maintenance, online abstract submission and registration.
3. Based on actual 2000 costs. This reflects Publications Manager work on collection, follow-up, organization and layout of plenary and workshop abstracts, formerly not included in the Program
4. Year 2000 number includes sound.
5. Year 2000 number includes space rental.
B. MEETING
ATTENDANCE
Pre-registration
2001:
1,430
$250,145
Pre-registration
2000:
1,083
$131,075
Total registration
2000:
1,183
$167,005
Pre-registration
1999:
1,142
$156,350
Total registration
1999:
1,366
$191,425
Drosophila Main Fund |
|
|
|
||
Meeting Year |
Net
Income |
Fund Balance |
Excess Over
Reserve |
#
Meeting Attendees |
|
1993 |
$17,105 |
$ 25,146 |
$ 146 |
1,165 |
|
1994 |
2,800 |
27,946 |
2,946 |
1,222 |
|
1995 |
8,417 |
36,363 |
11,363 |
1,103 |
|
1996 |
15,035 |
51,398 |
26,398 |
1,423 |
|
1997 |
31,663 |
83,061 |
58,061 |
1,382 |
|
1998 |
21,894 |
104,955 |
79,955 |
1,378 |
|
1999 |
(6,053) |
98,530 |
73,530 |
1,366 |
|
2000 |
(60,900) |
37,630 |
12,630 |
1,183 |
|
2001(proj) |
(12,493) |
25,137 |
137 |
>1,500 |
Note: GSA
has granted our request to raise the fund cap to $200,000.
Sandler Lecture Fund |
||||
Year |
Net Income |
Balance |
Excess to
Reserve |
|
1993 |
1417 |
26,720 |
18,720 |
|
1994 |
-1,207 |
25,513 |
17,513 |
|
1995 |
1,891 |
27,404 |
19,404 |
|
1996 |
1,009 |
28,413 |
20,413 |
|
1997 |
1,467 |
29,880 |
21,880 |
|
1998 |
1,386 |
31,266 |
23,266 |
|
1999 |
894 |
32,160 |
24,160 |
|
2000 |
1,405 |
33,565 |
25,565 |
|
5. Election Report
The Elections Committee consists of Gary Karpen (Chair), Ulrike Heberlein, Deborah Andrew, and Steve DiNardo. We met virtually and chose the nominees listed below. People were nominated by the committee as a whole, based on previous involvement in the fly community, our perception of their ability to perform the job. We also tried to choose people that have not served on the Board for awhile, or ever, in order to infuse new blood into the organization. Furthermore, based on our discussion last year about female participation, we made sure that there was significant female representation on the ballot; 15 out of 25 original nominees were female, and 7 out of 9 final nominees were female.
The original nominees were
California:
Larry Marsh, Judith Lengyel, Tom
Kornberg, Ken Burtis
Ralph Greenspan, Ulrike Heberlein,
Mark Krasnow
Northwest
Susan Parkhurst, Sara Smolik,
Barbara Wakimoto
Chris Doe, Hannele
Rouhola-Baker
Mid Atlantic
Denise Montell, Kim McKim, Mary
Lilly
Brian Oliver, Steve DiNardo, Liz
Gavis
Allen Shearn, Paul Adler
President
Elect
Ruth Lehmann, Marianna Wolfner,
Trudi Schupbach
Minx Fuller, Pam Geyer
Based on this slate, the
committee voted and chose the top 3 for the President Elect, the top 2 for each
regional representative.
The following letter was emailed to all flypeople in the FlyBase rolls.
Dear Flyperson,
Enclosed you will find a ballot on which to cast your vote for a representative from your region and/or the president-elect for the national Drosophila Board. The Board administers the finances for the annual North American Drosophila Research Conference and the Sandler Lecture Award, chooses the meeting organizers, provides oversight for the community resource centers, and addresses issues affecting the entire fly community. There are nine regional representatives on the Board, eight from the United States and one from Canada. The Board also has a President and Treasurer, as well as individuals representing Drosophila community resource centers, including the BDGP, Flybase and the Bloomington Stock Center. The Board has a business meeting once a year, just before the start of the annual meeting; during the year business is regularly addressed with e-mail discussions and voting. Further information about the Board can be found at
flybase.bio.indiana.edu/docs/news/announcements/other/Dros_Board_history.html
Historically, the Board representatives have been appointed by previous members. This year the Board voted to democratize the process and instituted community elections, commencing with this ballot. We also decided to vote for a President-Elect, to ensure that the next President would be trained in advance of assuming the position.
Please participate in this election, it is your opportunity to choose the people that will determine the scope and organization of the national meetings, as well as help set priorities and garner support for community resources.
Please vote for one of the following people in each category.
The nominees and results for the general election were:
President Elect
Trudi Schupbach*
Ruth Lehmann
Mariana Wolfner
Mid Atlantic Representative
Denise Montell*
Kim McKim
California Representative
Judith Lengyl *
Larry Marsh
Northwest Representative
Susan Parkhurst*
Sarah Smolik
The number of votes received was low (~190 total), and we need to do more this year to entice more people to vote. Perhaps it was low because it was the first year. The elections and the need for participation should be stressed at the business meeting, and people need to be told that this is their opportunity to participate in choosing leaders in the fly community. Second and third mailings spaced one week apart would also be helpful. Any other ideas the Board has are welcome.
This year we have to nominate and elect another President Elect, as well as regional representatives for the Great Lakes, the Southeast, and New England. We plan on doing this much earlier in the year in order to allow the President Elect to be exposed to the workings of the Board. Ballots will be mailed by the end of April 2001.
Last year it was proposed that redistricting occur such that the regional representatives, where possible, be affiliated with regional fly meetings. This matter needs to be addressed, as does an updating of the charter on the FlyBase web site.
We have also changed from having a large number of individuals with indefinite terms to very few, as reflected in the list on the next page.
Drosophila Board Master List:
Officers:
Steven Wasserman President 2002 stevenw@ucsd.edu
Gary Karpen Past-President 2001 karpen@salk.edu
Trudi Schüpbach President-Elect 2003 gschupbach@molbiol.princeton.edu
Steve Mount Treasurer 2002 sm193@umail.umd.edu
Regional Representatives:
Paul Lasko Canada 2002 Paul_Lasko@maclan.mcgill.ca
John Belote Great Lakes 2001 jbelote@mailbox.syr.edu
Susan Parkhurst Northwest 2003 susanp@fred.fhcrc.org
Rick Fehon Southeast 2001 rfehon@acpub.duke.edu
Judith Lengyel California 2003 jlengyel@ucla.edu
Bob Boswell Heartland 2002 boswell@beagle.colorado.edu
Claude Desplan New England 2001 desplan@rockvax.rockefeller.edu
Denise Montell Mid-Atlantic 2003 dmontell@jhmi.edu
Jeff Simon Midwest 2002 simon@molbio.cbs.umn.edu
Ex Officio:
Bill Gelbart FlyBase ---- gelbart@morgan.harvard.edu
Gerry Rubin BDGP ---- gerry@fruitfly.berkeley.edu
Thom Kaufman Bloomington SC ---- kaufman@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
Kathy Matthews Bloomington SC ---- matthewk@indiana.edu
Jim Thompson DIS ---- jthompson@ou.edu
Michael Ashburner Europe ---- ma11@gen.cam.ac.uk
Hugo Bellen SC adv. comm. 2003 hbellen@bcm.tmc.edu
John Lucchesi at-large 2001 lucchesi@biology.emory.edu
Chuck Langley at-large ---- chlangley@ucdavis.edu
Allan Spradling at-large 2003 spradling@mail1.ciwemb.edu
Larry Goldstein at-large 2002 lgoldstein@ucsd.edu
Lynn Cooley Sandler Lect. 2001 lynn.cooley@yale.edu
2002 Meeting Organizers:
Scott Hawley --- 2003 rshawley@ucdavis.edu
Ken Burtis --- 2003 kcburtis@ucdavis.edu
2001 Meeting Organizers
Mariana Wolfner --- 2002 mfw5@cornell.edu
Mike Goldberg --- 2002 mlg11@cornell.edu
Past Meeting Organizers:
Pam Geyer, chair --- 2001 pamela-geyer@uiowa.edu
Lori Wollrath --- 2001 lori-wallrath@uiowa.edu
GSA Representatives:
Elaine Strass Exec. Dir. ---- estrass@genetics.faseb.org
Marsha Ryan Mtg. Coord. ---- mryan@genetics.faseb.org
6. REPORT OF STOCK CENTER
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Hugo Bellen)
Report from the Bloomington Stock
Center Advisory Board (March 10, 2001) As usual, we are quite happy with the
performance of the Bloomington Stock Center. Most of the details of the
performance of the Stock Center are found in its annual report. The collection
is slowly expanding and the use is higher than ever.
The major issues that will be
discussed in this years annual meeting are:
1.
A fair cost recovery system to build an endowment for the
lean years.
2.
Deciding type and number of mutations that need to be kept
for each gene: EP, GT, PGAL4 and EMS induced mutations. Should we try to keep
more than one mutation per gene?
3.
The closing of the Umea stock center and its impact on
Bloomington.
4.
Status of the Hungarian collections and their
funding.
5.
The status of P-element genome disruption project (Rubin,
Spradling, Bellen).
6.
The status of the deletion project (Cook).
7. BLOOMINGTON STOCK CENTER
REPORT (Kevin Cook, Kathy Matthews, Thom Kaufman)
Report from the Bloomington Stock Center
Total stocks as of 3/8/01 7,906
Added during 2000 482
Lethal, sterile or visible alleles 318 (55 are P insertion lethal alleles)
GAL4/GAL80/UAS 37
GFP 14
FRT/FLP 38
Cre 4
lacZ 8
Deficiencies 35
Duplications 14
Balancers 4
Marker chromosomes 5
Other 5
Use during 2000 ‑‑ increase compared to 1999 is shown in parentheses
861 (7%) groups received stocks
7,791 (19%) shipments were made
85,650 (21%) subcultures were sent
36% of shipments and 38% of stocks went to groups outside the U.S.
96% of stocks went to researchers in academic institutions
Cost recovery
Fee structure for 2000
Category Stocks/Shipments Base fee + additional shipping
100+ 1‑20 stocks in up to 6 shipments $100 + $8 per shipment over 6
200+ 21‑100 stocks in up to 12 shipments $200 + $8 per shipment over 12
400+ 101‑250 stocks in up to 12 shipments $400 + $8 per shipment over 12
500+ 251‑500 stocks in up to 12 shipments $500 + $8 per shipment over 12
600+ >500 stocks in up to 12 shipments $600 + $8 per shipment over 12
Number and percent of groups in each use category and amount invoiced*
100+ 364 42% $ 30,180
200+ 282 33% $ 53,888
400+ 127 15% $ 52,781
500+ 62 7% $ 37,472
600+ 26 3% $ 19,576
Total $193,897*
* $15,483 in fees were waived prior to invoicing; for 1999 use, 4% of the amount invoiced was never paid
A new fee structure is expected for 2001 but the specifics are still being discussed with advisors.
Funding for FY 00/01
NSF $326,872
NIH $100,000
IU $ 39,338
Fees $186,454 (estimated ‑‑ $193,897 ‑ 4%)
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Total $652,664
We are currently in year 2 of a 5‑year funding period. A request for supplemental funds to allow us to add 5,000 additional P-insertions in or near genes not currently represented by mutations in the collection was granted by NIH. The collection is now funded to expand to 15,000 lines over the next 3 years.
We were notified on February 6 that the Umea stock center would be closed to the public as of March 1. They will continue to maintain their stocks and make them available to other stock centers at least through the spring. Bloomington will take ~475 lines from the Umea collection. It is expected that most of the others will be added to the developing Japanese Stock Center collection.
Endowment
The value of our endowment as of 3/8/01 is $442,114. If you would like to make a bequest to the center please contact us. Various items in the center are available for naming in your honor, depending on the size of the bequest. For $5M we will name the center after you:).
Deficiency project
Kevin Cook and Thom Kaufman's grant to improve deletion coverage of the fly genome and to provide duplication coverage of the X chromosome runs from May 1999 to April 2003. Substantial effort was made the first year to generate deletions by irradiating P-element insertion-bearing chromosomes, but this met with limited success. During the past year, the project has refocused its efforts on creating deletions using transposase-induced rearrangements between P- elements. This approach has proven very efficient and, after investing the time to mark P-element insertions spanning gaps in deletion coverage with visible markers, the project has entered a phase of intensive screening. Currently, deletion coverage of the autosomes is the primary focus, but pilot work for X chromosome deletion and duplication screens has been done.
Advisory Committee - current members
Hugo Bellen (Chair), Michael Ashburner, Ulrike Heberlein, Norbert Perrimon, Amanda Simcox
8. DIS REPORT (Jim Thompson)
Volume 83 of Drosophila Information Service has been published and distributed, with technique and research articles, reports of new mutants, teaching notes, and conference reports. This is the 10th year of publication from the University of Oklahoma, and at 248 pages it is the largest issue since 1994. No price change has been implemented since volume 71 (1992), and we will continue distributing the books at $12.00 plus shipping and handling for the foreseeable future, especially as a benefit to those in foreign countries with funding limitations. This issue was distributed several months later than normal, because at the traditional submission deadline in May we actually had only a handful of submissions. For many years, large elements like stock lists tended to fill a volume so that the cut-off for individual contributions was not a major consideration. But with electronic access to information of that kind, the pattern of individual technique and research note submission has become more significant. Most are received during the late summer or early fall, presumably as a function of freed time from academic schedules over the summer. For that reason, we have decided to shift the annual publication date to January each year with a recommended submission deadline of September, and DIS 84 will be dated "January 2002". In the interim, however, we plan to begin posting on the Drosophila Information Service web site the texts of selected categories (and eventually all categories) of articles as they are received, with initial emphasis on technique and teaching articles. A web site has been established and will be publicized more broadly when we have completed testing some elements and adding key files. As an on-going project, we will eventually have full text access to all back issues (1934-present) and a key word search capability. With continued low printing costs and no charges for personnel time, the journal can remain self-supporting for many years even if most researchers and students begin to depend on no-cost electronic access once the web site is fully active.
9. FLYBASE (Bill
Gelbart)
The FlyBase Project is continuing
along the same paths outlined in previous
reports to the Board. Our main preoccupation over the last
year has been
to evaluate and represent all of
the genomic and gene model sequence
information, and to integrate it
with community-derived information.
This
is very much a
work-in-progress. The regular reannotation ofthe
Drosophila
melanogaster genome is planned for
a 6-month cycle time, with the necessary
tools and datasets being in place
for the first cycle to begin September 2001.
This reannotation will be based on
the finished sequence that is currently being
produced by the BDGP (Susan
Celniker's group) and their subcontractor at
Baylor (Richard Gibbs'
group). We are currently
evaluating how to integrate all
of the molecular, phenotypic and
bibliographic information into individual Gene
Reports. Suggestions from the Board and the community concerning the
layout
and content of Gene Reports (or
any other aspect of FlyBase) would be most
welcome. Finally, there is the recurring issue of how to get
information from
the community, including but not
restricted to sequence level annotation
information. This is as much a sociological issue as
a technical one, and
insights from the Board on this
topic would be gratefully received.
Respectfully
submitted,
Bill Gelbart (PI -
FlyBase)
10. International Congress of Genetics (Phil
Batterham)
Genomes - The Linkage to Life
Melbourne Australia
July 6-12, 2003
The International Congress of Genetics (ICG) has a rather proud history dating back to the year 1899 (see Haynes - Genetics 148: 1419-1431). Held once every five years under the auspices of the International Genetics Federation, it serves to reflect on progress made in Genetics, to celebrate the best of contemporary research and to anticipate future developments in the discipline. The Congress has been held in many major centres around the world, but never in the southern hemisphere and, hence, never in Australia. In 1998 a bid to hold the 2003 Congress in Melbourne succeeded over a competing bid from Hamburg, Germany.
ICG 2003 in Melbourne will be a huge event. Over 3000 delegates will gather at the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre, half of these coming from countries other than Australia.
2003 highlights a critical landmark in Genetics - the fiftieth year since the publication of the Watson and Crick paper on the structure of the DNA molecule. The work of Watson and Crick and all that has stemmed from it will be discussed and celebrated. James D. Watson will attend the celebrations.
The Congress theme is Genomes - the Linkage to Life. With complete genome sequences now in hand, the discipline of genetics is free to powerfully address the broadest range of biological questions. The Congress will cover Genetics in all of its contemporary depth and breadth. There will be 10 plenary addresses and 54 symposia with a total of 280 invited speakers (over 220 of these from overseas), considering basic research themes as diverse as mutation, development and evolution and a broad raft of applied themes with relevance to agriculture and medicine using organisms ranging from viruses to humans. Ethical and legal issues will also be on the agenda. Given the importance of genetics research for wealth generation, issues relating to commercialisation, patents, IP and the availability of data in the public domain will be discussed in detail. A number of satellite meetings and workshops are being planned. This will provide added value for Congress delegates, allowing them to discuss specific areas of interest in greater detail than would be possible within the main program.
Our Congress President is Dr. Jim Peacock, Chief of the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry and recent winner of the inaugural Australian Prime Ministers Science Prize. The Secretary General, Dr. Philip Batterham, in leading the Congress organization committees has the support of the best local and international scientific expertise. Colleen Wenn and her team at 'The Meeting Planners' are providing outstanding professional conference management skills to ensure that the Congress is a huge success.
The head of our National Program Committee is Professor David Smyth. David has a breadth of experience in genetics research on organisms from fungi to humans. His research on floral development, initiated in collaboration with Professor Elliott Meyerowitz, has gained much international recognition. The International Program Advisory Committee is Chaired by Professor Chuck Langley (U. C. Davis), winner of the 1999 Genetics Society of America Medal.
The Congress web site (www.geneticscongress2003.com) will soon be launched. This site will provide regularly updated, detailed information on all aspects of the Congress. Registration, accommodation bookings and the submission of abstracts will also be managed via this site.
Given the importance of the Drosophila research in the discipline of Genetics, we aim to ensure that Drosophila geneticists are appropriately represented among the Congress speakers and delegates. The promotional opportunity provided by the Drosophila Board at the 2001 Fly Meeting is therefore greatly appreciated. I would now ask the Board to consider the following two issues:-
ICG2003 would serve as a major sponsor of the 2002 Fly Meeting. This would be done in partnership with a major sponsor for ICG2003. In particular a significant financial contribution would be made to the Fly Meeting Mixer. In return ICG2003 and their partner sponsor would be entitled to:-
As I attend the Fly Meeting every year, I realize that this proposal would generate a major change in the Mixer. However, I believe that it would enhance the event, not detract from it.
Cairns is on the Great Barrier Reef. Aside from being situated in tropical
paradise, Cairns offers excellent meeting venues easily reached from around the
Pacific rim.
While such a meeting could be
organized by locals, a cooperative venture drawing upon the
experience of the Drosophila board would be preferable. We seek support with promotion of this meeting and in
development of an attractive program.
The professional conference organizer for the Congress can fully handle
administration of the meeting.
I look forward to meeting
with you in Washington D.C. to discuss the details of this
proposal.
Dr. Philip Batterham
Secretary General
International Congress of Genetics 2003