FY 2000 proposal 20048
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Viral Vaccines and Effects on Reproductive Status |
| Proposal ID | 20048 |
| Organization | Washington State University (WSU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Sandra S. Ristow |
| Mailing address | Department of Animal Sciences Pullman, WA 99164-6351 |
| Phone / email | 5093350165 / ristow@wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Develop a vaccine for IHNV and test its efficacy and effect on reproductive status of salmonids |
| Target species | Oncorhynchus mykiss (Steelhead and Rainbow trout) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 1 |
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Genetic Retrieval |
Project Participant |
| 2 |
Endocrine Control of Ovarian Development in Salmonids |
Project Participant |
| 3 |
Analyzing Genetic and Behavioral Changes During Salmonid Domestication |
Project Participant |
| 4 |
Induction of Precocious Sexual Maturity and Enhanced Egg Production in Fish |
Project Participant |
| 5 |
Enhancement of Salmonid Gamete Quality by Manipulation of Intracellular ATP |
Project Participant |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Sandra Ristow 1.5 Technicians, Student Timeslip |
$61,586 |
| Fringe |
Sandra Ristow 26%; Technicians 29%; Timeslip 9% |
$17,330 |
| Supplies |
Molecular biology supplies, restriction enzymes; Flow cytometer, Supplies |
$18,055 |
| Operating |
Repair of equipment |
$3,000 |
| Travel |
|
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
@45% of Direct Costs (exclude equipment) |
$54,887 |
| Other |
Administrative Costs $5,000; Aquaculture Core $15,000; PCR $8,685; Documentation System $19,344 |
$48,029 |
| $204,887 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $204,887 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $204,887 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The proposal does not justify programmatic need.
Comments:
The goal of the study is to immunize broodstock directly and progeny passively or directly and to develop a method of delivery of IHNV immunogens using an adjuvant carrier. IHN is an economically important pathogen for pacific salmonids, but the proposal does not give evidence of importance to restoration in Columbia River salmonids. The disease is important to the aquaculture industry as it occurs in supplementation /restoration hatcheries, but the proposal doesn't demonstrate that it's a significant problem for restoration. It gives no analysis of cost or threat of the virus to restoration.
Reviewers ask several background questions that are unanswered in the proposal: What was the outcome of the major Western Regional Aquaculture Consortium effort in past decade on IHN vaccine? Why isn't the aquaculture industry supporting this research? What is the relationship of this project to any research on IHN vaccine in other PNW labs?
The methods for producing the vaccine (objectives 1 and 2) are adequately described. However, the experimental design for testing the effectiveness of the vaccine is poorly described. For example, methods for objective 3 do not state how many groups of fish will be challenged, how many fish are in each group (although later they state experimental groups will contain 125 fish but it is unclear exactly what this relates to), if or how many replicates there are or if there is a control. Under "statistics" they do state that cumulative percent mortality between various groups and controls would be analyzed. Because of the lack of detail in describing the design, it is difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the experiment. Similar lack of sufficient detail on experimental design is prevalent in the remaining objectives.
Although considerable technical and scientific background is provided, there is no attempt to tie the study to a specific part of the Fish and Wildlife Program and it is only weakly tied to other research.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - The proposal does not make a clear case as to why a new vaccine is necessary and why the vaccines already developed using BPA funding cannot be used.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Sounds like pure theoretical research. Unclear what the application is for the recovery of listed species.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];