2002 NATIONAL DROSOPHILA BOARD MEETING

April 10, 2002, San Diego, CA

Pacific Salon 4&5 Town and Country Resort and Convention Center

INTRODUCTIONS, APPROVAL OF THE 2001 MINUTES	2:00 - 2:10
MEETING FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION:	2:10 - 2:50
2002 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Ken Burtis, Scott Hawley)	2:10 - 2:30
2003 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Dennis McK. Helmut K.John A.)	2:30 - 2:35
Meeting Format & Workshop Discussion	2:35 - 2:50
MEETING SITE SELECTION:	2:50 - 3:10
GSA MEETING COORDINATOR (Marsha Ryan)	2:50 - 3:00
DISCUSSION OF 2005 MEETING SITE	3:00 - 3:10
FLY BOARD FINANCES:	3:10 - 3:40
TREASURER (Steve Mount)	3:10 - 3:20
BOARD DISCUSSION OF FINANCES, SPONSORS	3:20- 3:40
FLY BOARD COMPOSITION	3:40 - 3:50
ELECTION COMM (Gary K.) AND DISCUSSION	3:40 - 3:50
BREAK/ SNACKS	3:50 - 4:00
SANDLER LECTURER COMMITTEE (Steve DiNardo)	4:00 - 4:10
COMMUNITY RESOURCES:	4:10 - 5:15
STOCK CENTER ADVISORY COM. (Hugo Bellen)	4:10 - 4:15
BLOOMINGTON STOCK CNTR (Kevin Cook, Kathy Matthews)	4:15 - 4:30
STOCK CENTERS: PAST, ONGOING, AND NEW (Michael A.)	4:30 - 4:40
DIS (Jim Thompson)	4:40 - 4:50
FLYBASE (Bill Gelbart)	4:50- 5:00
D. PSEUDOOBSCURA SEQUENCING (Hugo Bellen)	5:00-510
COMMUNITY RESOURCES COMMITTEE REPORT (Bill G.)	5:10 - 5:25

OTHER BUSINESS	5:25 - 6:00

DRAFT REPORTS

REPORT OF THE 2002 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Ken Burtis, Scott Hawley, Chuck Langley)

Registration - Pre-registration for the meeting continues to be strong, as detailed in the report from Marsha Ryan. To date (as of 4/4/02), 1392 people (only 38 fewer than last year's record high) have registered for the meeting; the breakdown is in Marsha's report. An additional 100 participants are expected to register at the meeting itself. The strong attendance continues even with the increased registration fees and challenging air travel conditions this year.

Plenary Speakers - Fourteen plenary speakers were invited; this is three more than in previous years, due to the addition of a special plenary session sponsored by the NIGMS on "Drosophila in the 21st Century: Current and Future Role of Drosophila as a Model System for the Study of Human Disease and Normal Biological Processes." The NIH is covering the costs of audiovisual rental and refreshments for the break, so there is no added expense to the Drosophila community. No traditional meeting activity was eliminated by the addition of this extra plenary session, although we did reduce by one the number of sessions at which poster presenters were officially encouraged to stand next to their posters, in order to avoid temporal overlaps with scheduled workshops. This should not, however, detract from attendance at the poster sessions. 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, to include investigators at different stages in their careers, and to achieve gender and geographical balance to the extent possible (8 male and 6 female this year). Ed Lewis was invited to be the keynote speaker for the opening night, and will speak on "The Legacy of Calvin Bridges." An updated List of Plenary Speakers is appended to this report that includes the year 2002 invited speakers.

Abstract Submission- Abstracts were solicited under thirteen areas of primary research interest (one more area than employed during the 2001 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, 1003 requests were received for posters and platform talks ( versus 966 in 2001 and 802 in 2000). There were 377 requests for slide presentations for 144 available slots, allowing accommodation of approximately 37% of the requests (1% less than last year). The number of speakers for each sub-topic was roughly in proportion to the number of abstracts submitted in each sub-field, insofar as possible without combining topical areas in a single platform session.

The choice of session topics worked well, although there is definitely a higher chance of being chosen for a platform presentation in some areas relative to others (see table below). The most popular submission topics were Signal Transduction and Neurogenetics and Neural Development, but other subjects such as Regulation of Gene Expression and Pattern Formation were not far behind. We were able to deal with the higher numbers of submissions in the first two areas by offering two slide presentation sessions for these topics as opposed to one session for the less heavily enrolled subject areas. There is an important issue that needs to be dealt with in coming years regarding the overlap between platform sessions and workshops; for example Immune System and Apoptosis and Techniques are each represented by small platform sessions as well as workshops that have become, in reality, additional platform sessions.

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 that other criteria were also of importance. As far as possible, we tried to avoid having more than one slide presentation chosen from any one laboratory, although in some cases of large, highly productive labs or labs working in multiple disciplines, selections from the same group were appropriate. The task of dealing with this issue would be simpler if abstract submissions had a field indicating the identity of the principal investigator so that abstracts could be sorted according to laboratory.

Workshops - There were 13 workshops organized. The workshops have evolved to the point where they range from real workshops (e.g. Drosophila population genomics) with very loose organization, to alternative community-selected Platform Sessions (most of the "workshops", to an additional plenary session (the Techniques Workshop). Once again, as noted by the previous organizers, issues related to the workshops were the most time-consuming and vexing problems we encountered.

A choice needs to be made: are the workshops meant to be workshops (informal groups of people meeting to discuss relevant issues), or are they meant to be another form of platform session, with the topic suggested by the community ? If the latter is the case, it would probably be more useful to get community input beforehand about desired areas for new platform sesssions, and then handle them in the same manner as the other platform sessions. It might then be useful to arrange for small rooms to be set aside for truly informal workshops, with reservations for space prioritized in some organized manner. Platform sessions should have abstracts and scheduled speakers; workshops should not.

Policies - In general, the policies followed were similar to those for the 2001 meeting. Complimentary hotel rooms were reserved -- as traditionally -- for GSA personnel, the 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. 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. Audiovisual needs are being met as in past years, and there are no apparent problems to be dealt with in this regard, other than a tendency for some meeting participants to fail to read the information on the web site regarding what is available.

B. Some efforts were made to obtain corporate sponsorship of T-shirts this year, but in the end, they were unsuccessful. The organizers were not inclined this year to take the T-shirt production and sales upon themselves, so there will be no official meeting T-shirt this year.

C. Interactions with the GSA office and staff were excellent this year. Although the organizers are new each year, the GSA is becoming more and more experienced with respect to this meeting (thank you Marsha Ryan), and most issues were dealt with efficiently and expediently. The organizers have begun accumulating a compendium of advice (coordinated by Mariana Wolfner) to be passed along to future organizers, which includes both formal and informal wisdom about issues that need to be addressed. We will continue this tradition with respect to next year's organizers.

It was possible to save some money this year by doing things locally that would otherwise have to be done (at the normal expense) by the GSA office. For example, a web site was created for last minute changes and announcements that was developed by the program chair and created and hosted at Davis, rather than on the official GSA website. Links to this site were added by the GSA to the meeting web site. This approach could be used in many ways, presuming that the organizers are comfortable with web site creation.

As noted in last years report, it would be useful for the organizers to have contact information for meeting registrants (email and phone contact information). Unfortunately, not everyone is on the Flybase People database, and last minute emergencies (cancellations, etc.) could be handled more efficiently if the organizers had this information at their fingertips.

In summary, everything went fairly smoothly this year; attendance remains at record levels despite the events of last year, and the meeting is projected to earn a substantial profit. We look forward to an enjoyable meeting.

Acknowledgements: This report used the report of the 2001 organizing committee as a template, and includes where appropriate some text from that report.

2003 - 44^th ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MARCH 5-9 - SHERATON CHICAGO HOTEL AND TOWERS

Room rates at the Sheraton have been set at $180 single/double range per night. By the contract terms, based upon the Sheraton's group rate of $159 in 1999, our rate for 2003 was to be limited to no more than a 5% per year increase. Thus, the highest the rate could have been was $193 single or double. At the request of the Sheraton, in exchange for releasing a part of our exhibit/poster space the day before the Dros conference begins so the hotel could accommodate another group 1) the hotel set the sleeping room rate lower than they could have charge; 2) the hotel and the other group agreed to carpet the exhibit/poster area for the other group's function and leave it in place for Dros, thus reducing the amount of time our decorator needs to set up our exhibit/poster space (and thus reducing the expense of carpeting).

Note that because the meeting dates for 2003 are approximately 5 weeks earlier than this year, all major deadlines will need to be moved ahead accordingly. This means the deadline for abstract submission will be November 3. If the deadline for 2003 were the exact length of time before the first day of the conference as for the 2002 conference, the deadline would be October 31. Deadline dates already given to the 2003 Program Chairs are FIRM within 1-2 days and cannot be moved without causing considerable ripples in the overall preparation of publications and web sites for the conference. Also taken into account, though of much less significance is the timeline used by GSA staff members in preparing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics. Conflicts and particularly heavy workloads for staff working on both meetings come in mid-late July this summer and early-mid October (ASHG meeting is Oct. 15-19). Major differences for the Program Chairs are the fact that they will need to get to work almost immediately, and that the heaviest load of their work (selecting platform abstracts, finalizing plenary speakers and workshops) must be completed before the December/January holidays (instead of over and during the holidays).

2004 - 45^TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

At the 2001 Fly Board meeting, the Board selected the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC, site of the 2001 conference, as the facility for the 2004 conference.

2005 - 46^th ANNUAL CONFERENCE

The Town and Country Resort & Convention Center has been asked for a proposal for 2005 and has been told that much of the decision to be made by the Fly Board in selecting the site for 2005 will be based upon the outcome of this year's conference and how the staff performs, the space meets the conference needs and the enthusiasm, or lack of enthusiasm, of the registrants indicate for the T&C.

4. REPORT OF THE TREASURER (Steve Mount)

April 6, 2002

A. ANNUAL DROSOPHILA CONFERENCE INCOME/EXPENSE

(Data are from the GSA [Marsha Ryan], March 29, 2002)

Actual 2001 2002 (Projections)

Revenue

Registration $297,915 $282,650[1]

Exhibit Fees 12,600 15,300

Mailing Fees & Program Book Sales 1,476 5,260[2]

Advertising -0- 500

Donations 2,500 5,000[3]

Miscellaneous (Cancellations, etc.) 5,076[4] 5,100

TOTAL REVENUE $319,567 $313,810

Expenditures

Fixed Expenses:

Hotel and Travel-Staff 997 $ 3,500

Printing (Call, Program Book) 28,464 30,000

Mailing, Addressing, Shipping, Freight 7,729 10,500

Duplicating/Copying 713 800

Telephone - FlyBase room computer lines 5,325 5,500

Telephone & Fax - Other 803 850

Office Supplies (badges, signs, misc.) 1,778 4,000

Projection & Sound 31,488 30,000

Space rental (poster/exhibit hall space) 2,000 -0-

Masking, poster boards, tables, chairs 29,743 22,000

Exhibits 2,733 3,100

Contracted Services (Reg desk, security) 3,623 4,000

Computer Services 1,380 1,450

Insurance Expense 941 -0-

Miscellaneous 11 100

Subtotal Fixed Expenses: $117,728 $115,800

Variable Expenses:

Salaries/Wages/taxes/benefits $57,158 $58,000

Catering - Coffee/Soda Breaks 31,313 26,000[5]

Catering - Reception 30,284 30,000

Catering - Fly Base 4,126 4,100

Miscellaneous/Credit Card Expense 7,303 8,500

Sub-total Variable Expenses: $130,184 $126,600

Total Expenditures $247,912 $242,400

NET REVENUE (EXPENSE) $71,656 $71,410

B. MEETING ATTENDANCE

Pre-registration 2002 (San Diego): 1,219 $211,000

Projected total registration 2002: 1,454 $282,650

Pre-registration 2001 (Washington): 1,372 $240,240

Total registration 2001: 1,627 $297,915

Pre-registration 2000 (Pittsburgh): 1,083 $131,075

Total registration 2000: 1,183 $167,005

Pre-registration 1999 (Seattle): 1,142 $156,350

Total registration 1999: 1,366 $191,425

C. ACCOUNT BALANCES

Drosophila Main Fund
Meeting Year	Net Income	Fund Balance	# Meeting Attendees
1993	$17,105	$ 25,146	1,165
1994	2,800	27,946	1,222
1995	8,417	36,363	1,103
1996	15,035	51,398	1,423
1997	31,663	83,061	1,382
1998	21,894	104,955	1,378
1999	(6,053)	98,530	1,366
2000	(56,060)	42,470	1,183
2001	71, 656	114,126	1,627
2002 (proj)	71,410	185,536	1,454

Note: Fund balance cap established by GSA Board is $250,000.

Sandler Lecture Fund
Year	Net Income	Balance	Excess to Reserve
1993	1417	25,964	17,964
1994	(451)	25,513	17,513
1995	1,595	27,108	19,108
1996	1,142	28,250	20,250
1997	1,119	29,369	21,369
1998	1,385	30,754	22,754
1999	877	31,631	24,160
2000	257	31,888	25,565
2001	(234)	31,654	23,654

D. SUMMARY AND REMARKS

In contrast to the concerns expressed at last year's board meeting, and fears raised by the potential effect of the events of Sept. 11 on conference participation, the fund increased by $71,656 last year and a similar increase is projected for this year. This is due to the large number of late registrations at the 2001 meeting, the relatively inexpensive venue for the 2002 meeting, and consistently lower actual 2001 costs relative to projections in many categories (e.g. $28,464 for printing vs. an estimate of $30,000). In fact, if the projected net income from this year's Conference is realized, the fund will approach a balance of $190,000, relative to a fund balance cap of $250,000. The board may wish to consider making adjustments by reducing registration fees for next year's meeting. However, Marsha Ryan reminds us that many costs in Chicago will be greater than in San Diego. The single/double rate will near $200 per night plus tax, which will make the rate about what attendees paid in Washington in 2001 (or slightly lower). It is likely that these rates will reduce attendance. Therefore, she does not recommend lowering the registration fee for the 2003 meeting. She will be preparing the 2003 budget in May after fixed banquet menu prices are available. I note that the fund balance fell rapidly from over $100,000 in 1998 to $42,470 in 2000 and was considered to be in serious danger of going negative at this time last year, so a reasonable cushion is certainly appropriate.

5. Election Report

Election Report

The Elections Committee consists of Gary Karpen (Chair), Debbie Andrews, Ulrike Heberlein, Steve DiNardo, and Eric Wieschaus. 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.

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

Starting last year, the Board instituted community elections for regional representatives and for the President-Elect.

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.

The election ballots were tallied by Thom Kaufman, and the winners were:

Barbara Wakimoto for president elect,

Amy Bejsovec, for the Southeast region,

Sean Carroll, for the Great Lakes region

Laurel Raftery for New England.

This year we have to nominate and elect another President Elect, as well as regional representatives for the Canada, Heartland, and Midwest. 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.

Drosophila Board Master List:

Officers: end of term*

Steven Wasserman Past-President 2002 stevenw@ucsd.edu

Trudi Sch¸pbach President 2003 gschupbach@molbio.princeton.edu

Barbara Wakimoto President elect 2004 wakimoto@u.washington.edu

Steve Mount Treasurer 2002 sm193@umail.umd.edu

Gary Karpen Elections 2003 karpen@salk.edu

Regional Representatives:

Paul Lasko Canada 2002 Paul_Lasko@maclan.mcgill.ca

Sean Carroll Great Lakes 2004 sbcarrol@facstaff.wisc.edu

Susan Parkhurst Northwest 2003 susanp@fhcrc.org

Amy Bejsovec Southeast 2004 bejsovec@duke.edu

Judith Lengyel California 2003 jlengyel@ucla.edu

Bob Boswell Heartland 2002 boswell@beagle.colorado.edu

Laurel Raftery New England 2004 laurel.raftery@cbrc2.mgh.harvard.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

Kevin Cook Bloomington SC kcook@bio.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

Chuck Langley at-large ---- chlangley@ucdavis.edu

Allan Spradling P-element collect. ---- spradling@mail1.ciwemb.edu

Larry Goldstein at-large 2002 lgoldstein@ucsd.edu

Stephen DiNardo Sandler Lect. 2002 sdinardo@mail.med.upenn.edu

(Gary Karpen to become member at large 2004)

(Steve Wasserman to become member at large 2005)

(Trudi Schupbach to become member at large 2006)

2002 Meeting Organizers:

Scott Hawley --- 2003 rsh@stowers-institute.org

Ken Burtis --- 2003 kcburtis@ucdavis.edu

2003 Meeting Organizers

Denis McKearin 2004 dennis.mckearin@utsouthwestern.edu

Helmut Kramer --- 2004 helmut.kramer@utsouthwestern.edu

John Abrams --- 2004 john.abrams@utsouthwestern.edu

Past Meeting Organizers:

Mariana Wolfner --- 2002 mfw5@cornell.edu

Mike Goldberg --- 2002 mlg11@cornell.edu

GSA Representatives:

Elaine Strass Exec. Dir. ---- estrass@genetics.faseb.org

Marsha Ryan Sr. Mtg. Coord. ---- mryan@genetics.faseb.org

* year indicates the final year through which the members will serve, unless reelected.

6. REPORT OF STOCK CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Hugo Bellen)

Report from the Bloomington Stock Center Advisory Board (March 10, 2001) As usual, we are very 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 expanding and the use is higher than ever.

The major issue that will be discussed in this year's annual meeting are:

1. The status of P-element genome disruption project, new efforts, community support (Bellen)

7. BLOOMINGTON STOCK CENTER REPORT (Kevin Cook, Kathy Matthews, Thom Kaufman)

Report from the Bloomington Stock Center

1. Holdings

Total stocks as of 4/4/02 9,643

Added during 2001 1,091

Lethal, sterile or visible alleles 362 (184 are sequence-mapped P-insertion alleles)

Other sequenced-mapped P's 368 (many will prove to be alleles)

Deficiencies 218

Duplications 17 (plus 35 duplications in deficiency-primary stocks)

Balancers 4

Other aberrations 2

GAL4/UAS 68 (includes 1 FRT/FLP and 1 GFP also included below)

FRT/FLP 9 (includes 2 GFP's also included below)

GFP 4

lacZ 2

SNP mapping stocks 25

Other mapping 3

Marker chromosomes 8

P mutagenesis 1

2. Use

Acad

Gov

Com

Teach

Non-

Total

Registered

767

57%

1.5%

495

37%

1,342

Stocks

544

71%

70%

65%

33%

361

73%

945

71%

TABLE 1. Numbers of registered user groups in each institutional category (U.S. Academic, U.S. Government, U.S. Commercial, U.S. Teaching, and Foreign (Non-US)) and percent of total, and the percent of registered groups in each category that received stocks in 2001.

Acad

Gov

Com

Teach

Non-

Total

Registered

2,781

2,071

5,034

TABLE 2. The total number of registered user-group members in each institutional category for 2001. Only group members that have requested stocks in the last 3 years or were listed as current group members in an update from the laboratory are retained in our records.

US Acad

(IU)

Gov

Com

US Teach

(IU)

Foreign

Acad

Foreign

Com

Foreign

Teach

Total

Ships

6,127 (61)

72% (0.7%)

231

2.7%

118

1.4%

29 (10)

0.3% (0.1%)

3,450

41%

0.2%

0.04%

8,494

Subs

53,390 (335)

62% (0.4%)

2,114

2.4%

698

0.8%

151 (76)

0.2% (0.1%)

29,046

34%

385

0.4%

0.03%

85,975

TABLE 3. Degree of institutional use of the center during 2001. The number of shipments (Ships) and number of subcultures (Subs) received by each institutional category (U.S. Academic, U.S. Government, U.S. Commercial, U.S. Teaching, Foreign Academic, Foreign Commercial and Foreign Teaching) are shown, followed by the percent of the total each category represents. Use by Indiana University (internal use) is shown in parentheses under U.S. Academic and U.S. Teaching.

3. Fees

No. of Stocks	Cost per Stock	Account Fee	Range of Annual Fees*
1 - 5	$10	$25	$35 - $75
6 - 20	$5	$25	$80 - $150
21 - 50	$3	$25	$153 - $240
51 - 100	$2	$25	$242 - $342
101 - 500	$1	$25	$343 - $843
501 - 1000	$0.75	$25	$843.50 - $1,218
>1000	$0.50	$25	$1,218.50 and up

TABLE 4. New Fee Structure for 2001. * Note that these ranges include the account fee and the stock fee, but do not include the extra-shipping fee. The group with the most shipments in 2000 paid $400 in extra-shipping fees.

1-5

6-20

21-50

51-100

101-500

501-1000

>1000

Total

Groups

182

(19%)

217

(23%)

181

(19%)

137

(14%)

203

(21%)

(2%)

(0.7%)

945

Stocks

497

(1%)

2,499

(3%)

5,966

(7%)

9,666

(11%)

43,628

(52%)

11,545

(14%)

10,212

(12%)

84,013*

Assessed Fees

$9,520

(4%)

$23,345

(9%)

$34,596

(14%)

$40,760

(17%)

$105,794

(43%)

$20,306

(8%)

$11,972

(5%)

$246,293

Invoiced Fees

$8,355

(4%)

$20,948

(9%)

$32,824

(14%)

$37,856

(16%)

$101,020

(43%)

$20,306

(9%)

$11,972

(5%)

$233,281

TABLE 5. Assessed and Invoiced Fees in Selected Use Ranges for 2001. The number of groups in each use range (and the percent of total active groups), the total number of subcultures received by those groups (and the percent of total chargeable subcultures), the assessed fees (and percent of total) for all groups in that range, and the invoiced fees (and percent total) are shown. Invoiced fees are assessed fees minus waived fees.

*The remaining 1,962 subcultures shipped in 2001 were unchargeable, either because they were replacements for stocks lost or killed in transit (1,793 stocks) or stocks sent in error (169 stocks).

4. Funding

Funding for FY 01/02

NSF $339,383

NIH $235,219

IU $ 40,518

Fees $223,950 (estimated as $233,281 - 4%)

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

Total $839,070

We are currently in year 3 of a 5-year funding period. The collection is funded to expand to 15,000 lines over the next 2 years.

5. Endowment

The value of our endowment as of 2/28/02 is $496,555.

6. Advisory Committee

Hugo Bellen (Chair)

Michael Ashburner

Ulrike Heberlein

Norbert Perrimon

Amanda Simcox

8. DIS REPORT (Jim Thompson)

Volume 84 of Drosophila Information Service is the first with the new December deadline for submission of materials. Issues will now report contributions on a calendar year basis. This was very successful, and the volume will be among the largest in terms of numbers of pages of research, technique, teaching, and mutant reports. Over 70 articles are included, and the price will remain at $12.00 plus shipping and handling. The only negative is that the camera-ready copy was provided to the printer in mid-January, less than two weeks after the manuscript receipt deadline, and the printer promised final delivery the first week in February. It is now almost mid-April and the books have not yet been received. Since more than 2/3 of the manuscripts were received after the beginning of December, this is still a rapid publication turn-around, but I am obviously not satisfied with it. A new printing company has been located for next year. The cost will be a little higher, but still within our operating expense limits if the size of the issue remains about the same. I therefore do not plan an increase in cost of DIS 85. As a hedge against future delays of this type, plans for implementing the DIS web page are well on track for the summer. Data files are now being prepared, and the essential structure of the web page has been designed. We will begin by providing tables of contents and key word cross-references to articles. Previous articles will be archived for electronic access, beginning with the most recent three to five year's worth of technique, teaching, and research reports. Ultimately, we plan to have all articles on line. I also encourage members of the Board to send me information (e.g., lists of speakers and titles) for regional Drosophila meetings. These are reported in a special section of each issue and can be a useful source of outreach for those seeking graduate school mentors or postdoctoral researchers. All information can be sent to: James N. Thompson, jr., Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019; jthompson@ou.edu.

9. FLYBASE (Bill Gelbart)

Reannotation of the Release_3 D. melanogaster Genome:

The main focus of FlyBase over the last year has been to prepare for the global

reannotation of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. In order to make this

reannotation effort produce the best possible product for the Drosophila community,

it was necessary to delay the projected start of the reannotation until several underlying

datasets and tools were in place, including,

the essentially finished, release_3, sequences of the individual euchromatic chromosome arms (BGDP),
large additional 5' EST collections (BDGP and Brian Oliver),
full length cDNA sequence of DGC 1.0 and at least in part, DGC 2.0 (BDGP),
development of a computational pipeline (called BOP) to bring all of the prediction data together (FlyBase-Berkeley), and
production in a collaboration between FlyBase-Berkeley and the EBI/Sanger Centre of an interface (called Apollo) for FlyBase curators to evaluate the evidence and produce a definitive set of gene models (that is, transcript and CDS predictions).

Reannotation began in earnest at the beginning of November, 2001. The strategy was to divide successive chromosome arms into ~350kb blocks (the submission size to the DNA databanks) and assign each block to a different curator at two of the FlyBase sites --Harvard and Berkeley. A first pass of reannotation was carried on two arms -- 2L and 3R -- both as a learning exercise for the curators to encounter problematic predictions and set up a uniform set of guidelines of the conclusions to draw from various combinations of evidence. This quality/consistency assessment has been extremely important since 10 curators are engaged in the reannotation effort. Finally, in February, the last of the data sets (the DGC 1.0 cDNA sequences) were added to the annotation pipleline and the first arm, 2R, was fully annotated. We are now in the process of submitting the annotation of the assembled release_3 sequence of chromosome arm 2R to GenBank, and it should be in public view through FlyBase, NCBI, EBI & DDBJ at the time of the fly meeting or shortly thereafter.

The first pass of chromosome arm 3R reannotation is being re-evaluated now with the additional cDNA sequence data, and it should be in public view by the end of April. Chromosome arm 2L will be fully reannotated and in public view by the end of May.

There have been some delays in the completion of the finished sequence of the other 2 major chromosome arms, but 3L and X should be ready for reannotation by the time that chromosome arm 2L is completed. Chromosome 4 will be done thereafter. Hopefully, this will allow the public release of the fully reannotated release_3 genome by the end of July, 2002.

A special acknowledgement should be made to efforts of the entire FlyBase staff to support this global reannotation effort. It has required a huge, highly coordinated effort to develop the informatics, to put the necessary datasets in place and to integrate the information into the FlyBase database and the public views of the data.

Acknowledgement of NHGRI for its generous support of FlyBase is equally important. Were it not for NHGRI, there is no way that FlyBase could have come anywhere close to its current scope, and the fly community should recognize this major contribution by NHGRI. FlyBase would also like to thank the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for support of two programmers at Berkeley.

FlyBase Web Server:

As part of the reannotation effort, FlyBase committed to providing an integrated view of the genome project and community data in our databases. We have made use of an internal group of biologists from the project to work with our technical staff to develop an integrated and, hopefully, user-friendly entry point for Drosophila gene data. This is a work in progress, and this group will continue to work on design and query-interface issues to make the data as accessible as possible to the scientific community.

Future Reannotation:

Beyond release_3, our current plan is to continue reannotation indefinitely. While the plans for the next phase of reannotation are not concrete yet (it is a topic of discussion for our spring FlyBase meeting), the general idea is to reannotate subsets of the genome according to the availability of new data and because the subsets have some unifying scientific principle. For example, a genomic region containing a cluster of related sequences will be reannotated if there is new information on what these sequences correspond to. Alternatively, the genes encoding a protein family may be reannotated if there is new information on the gene models they contain. In both cases, we expect that a curator will be assigned responsibility for a particular scientific domain and will work with experts in the community to refine the definitive set of gene models. Based on other genomes such as C. elegans, we expect changes to the underlying genome sequence to trickle in for the next 2-4 years, and occasionally, these will also necessitate reannotation of a genomic region. Perhaps most importantly, the comparative sequence data that are now available from the mosquito Anopheles gambiae and will be available in several months from Drosophila pseudoobscura (which is being sequenced by Richard Gibbs and the Baylor Human Genome Sequence Center) will be rich sources of information for regions of conservation for gene models and for potential regulatory elements. We will be evaluating how to best incorporate these data sets into our future reannotation strategy.

In addition to our responsibility to maintain an up-to-date view of the gene products encoded by the D. melanogaster genome, it is also clear that a great deal of information will be coming out about cis-regulatory sequences and other domains in the D. melanogaster genome. In general, it will continue to be our goal to attach all available biological information to the genomic sequence of D. melanogaster. This is a challenge that should keep us in business for some time to come.

The Future of FlyBase:

FlyBase is now in its 10th year of NHGRI funding, and has begun the fourth year of the current 5 year grant period. The FlyBase Consortium has already begun the planning process for the renewal application, which will be submitted in February-March, 2003 for funding beginning December 1, 2003. We are taking this opportunity to do a complete reassessment of the goals and strategies that have evolved over the first 10 years of the project. Some decisions have already been made at a January 2002 meeting of the PIs (Gerry Rubin, Michael Ashburner, Thom Kaufman, Kathy Matthews and myself).

All current sites will continue to participate in FlyBase during the next grant period, at least at its inception. There will however be some changes in responsibility and organization.

One important behind-the-scenes change will be that the data currently housed in two separate data structures (often referred to as GadFly and the FlyBase-literature databases) will be merged into one integrated structure. This true integration will enable even more powerful querying of the database and will provide a structure that can be downloaded by the ever-increasing number of users who wish global access to the FlyBase data sets. The public FlyBase query interface will be redesigned to take advantage of this new integrated structure. It is our goal to have the integrated database in place by the beginning of the new 5 year funding period.

Obvious areas that FlyBase needs to evaluate are its roles in the collection and centralization of other data sets of interest to the scientific community. Among these are developing transcript array and proteomic data sets. It is not our intention to duplicate the efforts of central repositories such as GEO, but rather to reflect the value-added information on these datasets that the Drosophila community provides through the hard copy and electronic literature. Similarly, FlyBase needs to play a role in presenting information on gene pathways and networks, but this area is in sufficient flux that we have not yet settled on a strategy for doing so. Population genetic data is another area that FlyBase has not focused on, and with envisioned projects such as Chuck Langley's initiative to fully sequence large genomic blocks of many D. melanogaster haplotypes, incorporation of population-based data may become a high priority.

Some significant changes of responsibility are being planned for the beginning of the next 5 year cycle. Most notably, since the genomic information on D. melanogaster will begin to stabilize, Berkeley views its role within FlyBase as winding down. Several of the responsibilities of the FlyBase-Berkeley group will shift to FlyBase-Harvard. The integrated database that will be co-designed by the Harvard and Berkeley technical staffs will be housed at Harvard, and almost all of the on-going molecular curation responsibility will be at Harvard. The Berkeley group will maintain a FlyBase software development group and a small curation/annotation group for the first two years or so of the next 5 year grant cycle.

Integration and Coordination with other Model Organism Databases:

The major model organism databases have had a very effective dialog over the last few years. One spin-off of this dialog has been the GO Consortium (Gene Ontology), a functional annotation collaboration that originated with FlyBase (through Michael Ashburner) and its mouse, yeast and Arabidopsis companion databases, and which has been adopted as a standard by a great many informatics groups. A new project that is being funded by NHGRI and NIGMS, called GMOD (Generic Model Organism Database) has the goal of creating a suite of software tools that can be used essentially off the shelf as the underpinnings of the burgeoning number of new model organism databases. One by-product of the GMOD project will be higher levels of coordination and collaboration among the major model organism databases, perhaps including joint public interfaces for compatible subsets of our data collections. Discussions of GMOD will undoubtedly be an important component of our next 5 year renewal.

Community Input:

FlyBase will meet with its advisory board in October to discuss the grant renewal and database integration plans in detail. The advisory board consists of Drosophilists and bioinformatics specialists, and has been extremely helpful in mapping out FlyBase's paths. However, advice from a broader swatch of the scientific community is crucial as well.

Input from the Fly Board (and the fly community in general) on ours plans, priorities, organization, etc., is especially important during the preparation of the competitive renewal application. Please encourage your regional communities to pass on their suggestions and criticisms so that we can factor them in during our planning process.

Bill Gelbart (PI - FlyBase)

10. Community Resources Committee Report - Bill Gelbart

Because of time constraints, there has been no consultation with members of the committee; Bill is solely responsible for any opinions and erroneous facts.

The Community Resources Committee went into hibernation after the production of the Drosophila whitepaper, but now that it's spring (albeit a year later), it's the appropriate time to reactivate the committee.

Several of the initiatives that are discussed in the whitepaper are underway. The status of the major points of the whitepaper are:

1) Funding for the sequencing of the D. melanogaster cDNA Unigene set (the DGC or Drosophila Gene Collection, which has been assembled and is being sequenced by the BDGP), has been provided by NHGRI and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

2) Funding for expansion of the Bloomington stock center is in the process of being provided. There should soon be carrying capacity for 10,000-15,000 strains.

3) Database supplements for the reannotation of the Drosophila genome were provided by NHGRI. The competitive renewal of the FlyBase grant will be submitted in February-March, 2003, and this will likely request funds at the level described in the whitepaper.

4) The Baylor Human Genome Sequencing Center was recently awarded an NHGRI grant to produce a ~7-8X whole genome shotgun assembly of the Drosophila pseudoobscura genome. Some EST and full length cDNA sequencing is also envisioned by Richard Gibbs (PI) as part of this project.

5) An application for a molecular stock center and community microarray facility is currently being revised for resubmission to NIH.

With these projects underway, it is time for the fly community to evaluate further needs. One reason that this is timely is that NHGRI has set up a new mechanism for community input into the prioritization of BAC library production and whole genome sequencing targets by the major NIH-funded sequencing centers (Whitehead, Wash U and Baylor). If we think that it is imperative that further Drosophila species be sequenced, we have to develop a specific proposal as a white paper that has clear community support. The NHGRI committee (called GRASPP) reviews these white papers with the goal of triaging potential sequencing targets, so that in the future, available capacity of the sequencing centers is directed toward the highest priority group of genomes. I suggest that the Community Resources Committee be assigned the task of identifying a Drosophila genome sequencing program by early fall of 2002.

Other projects are under consideration by various members of the fly community, and their success in part will be determined by the level of support within the fly community. One example is Chuck Langley's project to sequence the genomes of about 50 Drosophila melanogaster haplotypes through hybridization-based resequencing technology. Another is an offer from Amanda Simcox to produce embryonic cell lines from a variety of strains. I believe that it would be helpful for the Community Resources Committee to play a role in helping to develop these proposals and to serve as a vehicle for community input.

If the FlyBoard endorses these ideas, then the make-up of the committee and its chair should be reviewed as part of the discussion.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Gelbart

OTHER BUSINESS:

International Congress of Genetics (Phil Batterham)

Genomes - The Linkage to Life

Melbourne Australia

July 6-12, 2003

The Melbourne Congress - July 6-12, 2003

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.

Communication

The Congress web site (www.geneticscongress2003.com) has been 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.

Satellite Fly Meeting in Cairns (Australia) in July 2003

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.

Dr. Philip Batterham

Secretary General

International Congress of Genetics 2003

Summary of Board Meeting 2002, San Diego

Minutes

2001 Minutes were approved.

Thom Kaufman and Bill Gelbart will post Minutes of the meetings on Web and revamp the link from Flybase to the Board documents so that these documents become a little more accessible to the uninitiated browser. Gary Karpen and Steve Wasserman will try to locate old Board Meeting Agendas and Reports, and send them to Thom Kaufman.

Program committee report:

The Board made the following recommendations, in response to the report by Ken Burtis:

Workshops: Since the past and present meeting organizers have found the workshops to be the most troublesome part of the meeting to coordinate, the Board discussed guidelines to make this part of the job easier. Workshop chairs should be told to encourage more discussion. Workshops should not be exactly like platform sessions. Overlap between workshops and platforms should be avoided. Overall, the honor system for giving only one talk at the meeting seems to work quite well. Only the title of the workshop and name of chair(s), time and room will be printed in the program book from now on; the workshop abstracts and speakers will no longer be included. Organizers should therefore not have to worry about the exact workshop programs and speakers. But in turn for being given free reign, workshop chairs have to allow time for discussion and think of ways to encourage discussion.

Poster Sessions: More time should be allotted for poster sessions; possibly a greater number of workshops could be held in parallel to avoid the conflicts of workshop and the poster sessions. This change will require that we rent more rooms, and therefore will cost more (projection costs would increase as well). Marsha Ryan will investigate whether this will be possible in Chicago. Big advantage would be that it would free up time. Since there is some extra money, it should be possible to try this. In addition, the poster sessions are growing. This may pose space problems in the future. Right now, space for all posters is available, as long as the slightly smaller poster boards (4x6) are used. This size seems acceptable, and will be used in the future in order to accommodate all posters, unless there are complaints after the San Diego meeting. But if poster numbers increase a lot more, it is possible that two different sessions will be necessary in the future.

T-shirts. These have to be an option left to organizers. Some organizers may choose to have T-shirts, while others may not. No one should feel obligated to make T-shirts available. Ken Burtis suggests that people who want T-shirts can email the organizers to obtain the art design of the program book as an electronic file, and they can make their own T-shirts.

Future sites: We are moving toward a three-site rotation (Chicago, Washington DC, San Diego) but we can remain flexible and decide whether sites live up to expectation (this may also give some bargaining power).

Finances

The meeting has now a substantial surplus. This allows for some flexibility.

Ideas on how to spend the surplus were discussed and the strongest support was for providing a free breakfast to attendees. This can be organized after the registration deadline, i.e. when it becomes clearer what the financial outlook of the particular meeting will be. If there is a substantial surplus, there could be two free breakfasts. Also snacks could be offered at the poster session, in addition to the free drinks that are traditionally available. The meeting organizers together with Marsha Ryan and the Board president can decide on these expenditures on a flexible basis.

New expenditure: The Board decided that finalists of the Sandler award competition should also be invited to the meeting. Their travel and registration will be paid for by the general fund, and their names will be announced at the meeting.

Reserve amount: Keeping a reserve amount against future losses was generally approved by the Board. The exact amount has not been determined. Several board members felt that $150,000 would be a comfortable amount, which could offset two years of losses on the order of the Pittsburgh meeting. Marsha Ryan and Steve Mount thought $150,000 is too much to set aside. We will ask the Board members to consider this issue further and decide soon on an amount to keep in the reserve.

Elections

The election committee nominates delegates living in the different regions to ensure diversity on the Board. It was agreed that everyone in the fly community can vote for the proposed delegates, including any of the regional representatives who are on the ballot that year.

To ensure long-term memory on the Board, former presidents will usually become members at large for three years after their terms expire. In this particular year, that means that Gary Karpen, who served as president in 1999/2000, and past president in 2000/2001 will become a member at large serving through 2004, Steve Wasserman will become a member at large serving through 2005. The job of organizing elections will also be rotated off, such that this year Steve Wasserman will be in charge of elections, and will he will transfer this duty next year to Trudi Schupbach.

Sandler report

Thesis of the finalists are now usually submitted on CDs, saving the candidates money in printing copies of their figures and making shipping easier. In addition to the winner, the finalists will be invited to the meeting (see above, under Finances). This will be paid for by the general meeting fund. The Sandler chair, Steve Di Nardo, will select a new Sandler committee chair, and serve on next year's committee.

Community Resources
Hugo Bellen reported on efforts to generate new P-element insertions. Many new P-elements have already been sent to Bloomington, and by the spring of next year, in the order of 4,000 new P-elements should be at Bloomington. Different P-element vectors will be used to ensure diversity in insertion sites.

Question about Piggyback insertions: Michael Ashburner reported that Cambridge is about to sign an MTA with Exelixis to be able to distribute Piggyback insertion strains. The exact legal issues are not clear, but it may be worthwhile for the US P-element team to check with Michael. Hugo Bellen also reported that Piggyback, while being great at having a different insertion propensity, and therefore good for targeting new genes, has drawbacks as a mutagen. However, Allan Spradling is improving their use.

Stock Centers:

The Bloomington Stock Center continues to do extremely well.

Kyoto Drosophila Genetics Resource Center: This stock center will begin distributing stocks during 2002. They intend to serve as the primary distibutor of common stocks to Asia and this should alleviate some of the work/costs of Bloomington in sending stocks to Asia. They also intend to distribute many unique stocks. While they may face difficulties during their initial years of operation, their success is important in adding to the total worldwide stock maintenance capacity.

Kathy Matthews explained that the United Nations Convertion on Biological Diversity has drafted a protocol (the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) concerning the international transfer of genetically-modified organisms. The protocol exempts research model organisms from detailed risk assessments, but there is some concern that adoption of the protocol by member nations would negatively impact the free exchange of fly strains between researchers via the mail. Should the U.S. sign the protocol and the U.S. Postal Service propose or implement new regulations, the Drosophila Board should comment on proposed guidelines and/or petition for relief from burdensome requirements. Current postal guidelines are not explicit in their requirements for the international transport of most fly strains (transgenic or non-transgenic), but it has not proven to be a problem. Should practices change, the Board may need to petition the Postal Service to draft guidelines specifically mentioning Drosophila, such as those regulating the transport of other insects (e.g. silkworms, honeybees).

Flybase

Bill Gelbart reported on new genome annotation. Also, Flybase is introducing much valuable new data on gene expression. (The demos at the meeting were indeed very impressive).

Nomenclature

Bill Gelbart and Gerry Rubin stated that the nomenclature rules for Drosophila are in many ways cumbersome in this era of electronic curation and searching with electronic tools. Many programs, for instance, do not distinguish between upper case and lower case, and thus B and b cannot easily be distinguished as different genes.

The Board decided that a Nomenclature Committee should be formed. Scott Hawley was designated as its chair, and he will convene a committee. He selected Kevin Cook as one member. It was suggested that at least one additional member be a Flybase person to ensure that the new rules are "computer compatible". The committee will look at all the nomenclature rules as they are posted on FlyBase, and will make recommendations for consideration by the Board.

New Genome Sequencing Projects

The Anopheles sequence should be on line soon.

Sequencing of Genomes of other fly species would be very valuable.

Bill Gelbart stated that there are deadlines this year (June and November) where big sequencing projects can be submitted to the NIH. This may be the last opportunity for funding large sequencing projects for some time, given insecurities about funding from year to year and shifts in NIH priorities. With this in mind, it was agreed that it is in the best interest of the Drosophila community to consider what the highest priorities should be for the next large scale sequencing projects. Gelbart suggested that whitepapers outlining these priorities would be useful. Chuck Langley agreed to assemble a group that would assess the value and strategies for sequencing different strains of D. melanogaster for studies of intraspecific variation. Gerry Rubin agreed to assemble a group that would consider which species of Drosophila might be most useful to sequence. These groups will report back to the Board as soon as possible. Bill Gelbart will advise of exact requirements for submission of the NIH proposals.

There is also a grant already submitted by Gary Karpen and collaborators that proposes a Heterochromatin Genome Project for D. melanogaster. It seems that this is an excellent grant, with good chances for being funded. The Board will find out whether anything can be done to lobby for this and other sequencing projects with the granting agencies.

In general, it was decided that the Board could do more to educate the NIH of the importance of supporting Drosophila research and community resource projects. This effort is especially critical this year because of the recent turnover of key NIH personnel and a proposed reorganization at the NIH being considered. Laurie Tompkins has been recommended by many people as an excellent resource to advise us of name/contacts of people at the NIH that we should talk with. Trudi Schupbach and Barbara Wakimoto will contact Laurie Tompkins immediately. It was also recommended that the Board should encourage prestigious, well-spoken Drosophila researchers (including Board members) to go to Washington to meet with officials of the NIH or other granting agencies (or to meet with officials when Board members are in Washington anyway). In addition, if any Board Members become aware of opportunities along these lines, they should advise the Board.

[1] As of 3/27/02 registrations totaled 1,389. To make budget of $282,650, approximately 150 people need to register on-site.

[2] In 2002, advance mailing fee raised to $15 from $5 in 2001. Only 284 registrants requested advance mailing in 2002 compared to 659 in 2001. Additionally, because most of those who requested advance mailing from overseas in 2001 did not receive their books in time for the meeting, overseas registrants wanting advance mailing were required to pay cost of Federal Express. No overseas requests received in 2002.

[3] This figure is the projected amount for which NIGMS will contribute based upon costs of audiovisual equipment and the coffee break for their sponsored plenary session.

[4] This figure includes a reimbursement from the Gelbart Lab for the catering expenses incurred by the FlyBase Room in the amount of $4,126 (shown in expenses under Catering - FlyBase).

[5] Coffee/Soda Breaks are based on 1400 registrants; and coffee is significantly less costly than in Washington, DC.

Topic	Number of applicants (platform and poster)	Number of Speakers
Signal Transduction	116	16
Neurogenetics and Neural Development	98	16
Regulation of Gene Expression	94	12
Pattern Formation	88	12
Gametogenesis and Sex Determination	80	12
Meiosis, Mitosis, and Cell Division	76	12
Neural Physiology and Behavior	75	12
Genome and Chromosome Structure	74	12
Evolution and Quantitative Genetics	72	8
Cytoskeleton and Cellular Biology	69	8
Techniques and Genomics	66	8
Organogenesis	51	8
Immune System and Apoptosis	41	8