An initiative of the CGIAR

Translational Research:

The Generation Challenge Programme,

a Successful Case Study

CROPS, Improving Agriculture Through Genomics

Huntsville, Alabama, USA

May18-21, 2015

Jean-Marcel Ribaut

Photo credit: Neil Palmer/CIAT

Our Discussion Today:

Translational biology

Introduction to GCP

Major achievements

The Integrated Breeding Platform

Challenges

Lessons learnt and conclusion

Translational Biology

A “Must Have” to have impact on the ground

A lot of good intention but still too little impact

Research: Link upstream with applied research with well

defined delivery pipeline

Examples of initiatives: Gates Foundation projects, African Orphan

Crop Consortium, NGGIBCI, GCP, others

Deployment and sustainable adoption: Remains the major

challenge

Still paternalistic approaches

Keep scientists/breeders excited about their work (capacity building,

funds, recognition, partnerships, professional development, etc)

It starts by implementing good practices

Infrastructure (field and IT)

Data and knowledge management

Quality control

Impact of translational biology often relies on change management

and the human component should not be underestimated

GCP: Intro and Achievements

GCP in Brief

A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT

10-year framework (Phase I, 2004–2008; Phase II, 2009–2014)

US$ 170 M program

Target zones: drought-prone environments

Sub-Saharan Africa, South & South East Asia, L. America

Eighteen CGIAR mandate crops in Phase I

Nine CGIAR mandate crops in Phase II

Cereals: maize, rice, sorghum, wheat,

Legumes: beans, chickpea, cowpea, groundnut

Roots and tubers: cassava

Strategic objective: To use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops for greater food security in the developing world

GCP: A broker in plant science bridging the gap between upstream and applied science

www.generationcp.org

Phase II

The sorghum case: From Cornell to African farmers’

fields with a stopover in Brazil: a ten-year effort

Step 1: Competitive Project (initiated 2004)

Led by Cornell in collaboration with EMBRAPA

Plantlets screened under hydroponics – Alt1 gene cloned

Magalhaes et al. 2007, Nature Genetics, 39: 1156–1151

Step 2: Competitive Project (initiated 2007)

Led by EMBRAPA in collaboration with Cornell

Favourable alleles identified – Improved germplasm for

Brazil

Caniato et al. 2011, PLoS One 6, e20830

Step 3: Commissioned work (initiated 2009)

Led by Moi University in collaboration with EMBRAPA

Introgression of favourable alleles – Improved germplasm

for Kenya and Niger

Linking Upstream with Applied Science

Indicators

Money allocation to partners

Significant in-kind contribution from partners

Open exchange of experience and information

Partners not necessarily attracted (purely) by money, but to be part of a network, visibility and exchanges with peers abroad

Critical but indispensable intangibles – trust and goodwill

Partners continue to work together after GCP projects end

Evolution of roles and responsibilities

A switch: Leaders become mentors

Knowledge applied & transferred: Trainees become doers & leaders

In Phase II, more than half of our PIs are from developing countries and more than half the grants go directly to National Programmes

It takes time and resources to nurture and implement true

partnership!

True Partnerships

Genetic resources

Reference sets for 18 crops (all CGIAR mandate crops)

Genomic resources

Markers for orphan crops

Informative markers

Drought, viruses and insect resistance

Genes/QTL

AltSB for Al tolerance, Pup1 for P uptake efficiency, Saltol for salt tolerance

and Sub1 for submergence tolerance

Improved germplasm

New bioinformatic tools (data management, diversity studies, breeding, etc)

Enhanced capacity for MAB in NARS programmes

Human resource capacity / physical infrastructure / analytical power

Ex-ante analyses of MAB impact in developing countries

Product catalogue: www.generationcp.org/impact/product-catalogue

Selected Major Research Outputs

‘Classic’ approach

Formal postgraduate training programmes

100+ MSc and PhD students whose work is embedded in research projects

Workshops, fellowship grantees, travel grants

Train-the-trainers for future regionalised capacity-building sustainability

Communities of practice

Rice in the Mekong; Cassava in Africa

IBP-hosted (both crop- and expertise-based)

Perhaps not so common – probably uniquely GCP

Capacity building à la carte

Integrated Breeding Multi-Year Course: breeding, data management,

data analysis

CB along the delivery chain (scientists, technicians, station managers)

Technical support for infrastructure implementation

IBP an integrated way to promote the problem-solving approach

It is really about “learning as you go”

Capacity building

The Integrated Breeding

Platform

Breeders: Increase data quality, documentation and exchange

Savings in time and cost to run breeding activities

Increased genetic progress per crop cycle

Value proposition

Institutional management: Improved institutional data management

Better product at lower price (efficiency and effectiveness)

Increase value proposition to attract funds

Society: Improved crops (quality-yield) in farmers’ fields

More income for smallholder farmers

More and better food to feed the world

IBP General Overview

The Integrated Breeding Platform https://www.integratedbreeding.net

Breeding Management System A suite of interconnected software tools and applications specifically

designed to help breeders manage their day-to-day activities:

Programme management

Customise preferences and

monitor programme activities

from the Workbench, a

dashboard application with

integrated tools to manage and

query crop information across

the system

Marker-assisted breeding

Select germplasm and design

crosses by complementing

phenotypic selection with marker

technology, for integrated breeding

decisions

Breeding activities

Prepare trials and nurseries,

manage seed inventories and

keep continuous genealogy

records season after season

Statistical analysis

Analyse field and lab data with

powerful statistics and mixed

model comparisons of locations

and genotypes

To be successful in enhancing plant

breeding efficiency in developing countries,

we need to deliver much more than a simple

analytical pipeline!

For breeders in developing countries the

adoption and implementation of the BMS as

a day to day routine platform is a revolution!

The establishment of reliable, locally based,

support services is critical for adoption!

Key Principles for Modern Breeding

Adoption in Developing Countries

Breeding Services & Products

https://www.integratedbreeding.net

The Support Services

Considering the nature of the IBP and the very diverse potential users

of the BMS, it is critical to provide top-quality support services to

promote adoption and to ensure sustainable use

Professional Support to be provided in three ways:

Client-oriented, customised breeding support primarily targeting

developing-country breeders

Capacity building support to provide professional and comprehensive

training in using the tools

Interaction with peers through social networks and CoPs

Technical Support to be provided at two levels to all users:

Level 1: installation technical support

• To overcome any difficulties in downloading, installing and getting started

with the BMS and related tools

Level 2: operational technical support

• for users that might encounter problems in day-to-day use of the BMS and

related tools

Central Support Team:

Managers plus specialists

DB/DM

BMS CB Breeding

BMS Sustainable Support Service

BMS Adoption: 3 teams

Customized and punctual support

Delivery Model – Network of Hubs

IBP General Overview

Challenges

Challenges:

Most of the breeders in the developing world capture their data by hand and store them in hard copy (book)

In general, protective and proprietary attitude prevents data sharing

Not a top priority, no clear resource allocation, data still in the hands of individual scientists

One of the major challenges in collaborative efforts

Implementation:

Clear DM policy in place at the institutional level

Quality and documentation improved thanks to:

Adoption of new data capture tools with predefined templates

Proper budget allocation including support staff

Part of the staff evaluation process

Donor requirement beforehand

Quality control must start at the scientist level

Data Management (A Key Technical Hitch)

IBP Deployment

Do not rely on upper management alone, top-down directives

rarely work (in the public sector )

Engage at the breeder level and support and mentor

enthusiastic breeders (champions)

Funding alone is not sufficient incentive

GSS and fingerprinting experience during IBP Phase 1

But, resource allocation to support adoption in a sustainable

way is a clear “must have”

An holistic approach is essential during the needs assessment

GCP experience has demonstrated the necessity for a range of

complementary activities and investments beyond the BMS

Most people are reluctant or resistant to change, even where

there are clear and demonstrable benefits from making a change

Most changes can be implemented only by:

Strong bottom-up demand

Strong and clear support from upper management

Need to be ready to:

Change the way you do business

Dedicate time to learn new things

Share results/methods in an open manner

Adopt a corporate and some times entrepreneurial spirit

Enforcement and implementation

Big difference between the private and public sectors

Need to nurture a culture of change

To Change People’s Behavior: A (THE) Major Challenge!

Lessons Learnt and Conclusions

Lessons Learnt and Conclusions (I)

Still early to measure impact on the ground at this stage

but overall, it seems that GCP has been a successful

venture: Quality of science supported by impressive set of publications

Broad range of products have been generated

Networks will continue to operate under the leadership of

champions (regional, crop specific, across institutions)

The GCP is already missed!

Major achievements probably revolve around: Establishment of true and dynamic partnerships based on trust

and evolution of responsibilities: The GCP spirit!

Cultural change on how to run R4D projects from a research and

management perspective

Enabling partners in developing countries to access modern

biotechnologies

Lessons Learnt and Conclusions (II)

An combined management of competitive vs

commissioned projects has been key to succeed

The GCP model: “Broker in plant science” can be applied

to complement institutional core activities

Lessons learnt from the CPs in general and GCP in

particular can positively inform the CRP organisational and

operational models

The legacy: The IBP lives on!

Contributing to promote breeding evolution-revolution

An integrated and comprehensive “one stop shop” approach

Enabling GCP product deployment

Providing capacity building support “as you go”

An innovative business model approach

The BMS is building a very good momentum with increasing demand!

GCP/IBP International Staff 2003 - 2014

Akinola Akintunde

Antonia Okono

Arllet Portugal

Carmen de Vicente

Chunlin He

Clarissa Pimentel

Claudia Bedoya

Corina Habito

Delphin Fleury

Diego González-de-León

Eloise Phipps

Fernando Rojas

Fred Okono

Gillian Summers

Graham McLaren

Hamer Pascal

Hei Leung

Humberto Gomez

Jan Erik Backlund

Jean Christophe Glaszmann

Jenny Nelson

Jonathan Crouch

Kaitlin Lesnick

Kate Durbin

Larry Butler

Mae Christine Maghirang

Maria Teresa Ulat

Mark Sawkins

Ndeye Ndack Diop

Nelzo Ereful

Nosisa Mayaba

Peter Ninnes

Philippe Monneveux

Rajeev Varshney

Robert S. Zeigler

Rowena Tulod

Shawn Yarnes

Theo van Hintum

Valérie Boire

Xavier Delannay

GCP People:

The Programme’s Greatest Asset!