X. MAIZE GENETICS CONFERENCE

<http://www.maizegdb.org/maize_meeting/2006>

Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

48^th Annual Maize Genetics Conference

Asilomar Conference Center

Friday March 9, 2006

Jay convened the meeting at 9 pm

Attendees: Jay Hollick (chair); Anne Sylvester (co-chair); Wes Bruce; Tom Brutnell; Karen Cone (ex-officio); Monika Frey; Erin Irish; Marty Sachs (ex-officio); Jorge Nieto-Sotelo; Mary Schaeffer (Polacco) (ex-officio); Richard Schneeberger; Trent Seigfried (ex-officio); Marja Timmermans

Jay suggested keeping meeting minutes and volunteered the job to the meeting co-chair. Hearing no objection, Anne agreed to take notes.

Jeff Bennetzen from MGEC presented concept of 2008 50^th anniversary meeting to be held in Washington DC area. Discussion:

� Venue for receptions could be Botanical Garden, NAIM, or AMNH

� Jeff will talk with GSA, NCGA and other groups about venue

� Anne and Jeff will submit for venue proposals, which are needed soon

� Local organizer still needs to be identified

Jay presented a Charter as a way to formalize steering committee purpose. Discussion:

� Corrections: clarify the name so that conference is added

� Charter should be made public to community by posting on maizegdb

� Anne noted that it would be helpful to also develop an annual timeline of activities so the new chair has clear guidance on what is needed, when

� Timeline can be developed and added next year

� Motion to accept charter and post on maizegdb approved

New steering committee members were discussed and voted on.

� Peter Rogowski, Steve Moose and Mei Guo will replace Jay, Monica and Wes.

� New steering committee will be announced Sunday morning.

Discussion about 2007 meeting

� Dates are March 22-25, Pheasant Run

� Tom Brutnell will be co-chair for 2007 meeting (chair for 2008 meeting)

� Speakers � Susan Lindquist has agreed to speak on Friday

� Three other plenary speakers discussed and approved

� Anne will invite the plenary speakers

� Meeting will include an annual report from the MGEC

Further discussion about the 2008 meeting

Discussion of possible future venues:

� 2009 - return to Midwest for 51st meeting

� 2010 � Europe? Barcelona or southern France as possibilities

Meeting finances

� Budget is at bottom; Asilomar was expensive due to poster tent (essential) and aquarium (well worth it)

� Need to raise registration fees

� Should meeting planning stay centered at Missouri? Definite advantages for now, but will need to reconsider if meeting continues to grow

� Should the meeting be made a foundation - not for profit entity, which would make contributions tax deductible � Karen will look into

� Should the meeting become a GSA run meeting? Problem is it would become more expensive. Perhaps Vicki Chandler or Karen Cone could look into the option

� Conclusion: need to build up meeting budget

Issue of vendors: should there be vendors at all?

� SC voted this year to not include vendors in the 2006 meeting

� However, one vendor still showed up and set up a poster that was borderline between selling and telling � yet we did not get any income from it

� Suggestion was made to charge a significant fee for vendors

� $5000 could be charged with a cut-off for number permitted � the money could be used for scholarship

� Conclusion: revisit the issue and revote by email if (when) it comes up prior to the 2007 meeting

Meeting registration fees

� Expecting approximately same number at 2007 (approx 550 registrants)

� Fees should be raised to $150 for registration, since this is the first year we are starting out with a near deficit. Also, the 2008 meeting will be expensive.

� Perhaps special events should be charged extra fees in the future

� Would it be worth also submitting a meeting proposal to USDA? NSF continues to be supportive, and should we expect more money from another federal agency? May not be a good strategy. Suggestion was made to discuss it with program directors.

� Conclusion: raise fees next year, but exact amount will be determined after budget finalized

Issue of fund-raising and international scholars fund

� Jorge and Torbert Rocheford were recognized and thanked for their successful efforts to distribute scholarship funds to Latin American students

� The concept of scholarships for developing countries was strongly supported, but replenishing the fund is now needed

� The t-shirt sales this year will go towards next year�s international scholarship fund

� It was pointed out that the scholarships should be awarded based on need

� Do we want to adopt fundraising as a regular meeting activity?

� T-shirt fundraising was successful this year, but do we really want to formalize it as another steering committee activity? There was weak support for formalizing it now.

� Pass the hat could continue, but it also should not be formalized. Some are more comfortable with that kind of activity than others � should not therefore make it a necessary steering committee activity � the ad hoc approach seems to work best

� But we could add a donation check box to the registration form, as long as it is clear that the donation is not currently tax deductible

� Conclusion: the steering committee will not adopt formal fundraising as part of its annual activity.

Review and revisit of meeting guidelines

� As requested from outside the steering committee, an annual MGEC report will be provided at every meeting

� There will be no repeat performances i.e. the same speaker will not present two years in a row, although the same lab can have sequential presentations

� Large labs should not be penalized by a rule that there is only one talk / lab

� Senior grad students, post-docs should get priority

� Should there be a representative from NCGA on steering committee? No � but we should make room each year in the agenda for an NCGA report

Discussion of poster contest

� All agreed a poster contest was a great idea, thanks to Jay.

� Couldn�t be implemented this year but will work on for next year

� Discussion of whether it will be announced and who will judge posters

� Steering committee would oversee judging by grouping by subject matter, then chair and co-chair would select winners along with committee

� Issue of money awarded would depend on budget balance next year

� Conclusion: will revisit in November 2006 when planning for abstract submissions for 2007

Discussion of Allerton meeting

Jay adjourned the meeting at midnight.

Charter for the Maize Genetics conference Steering Committee

This document serves to identify, clarify and guide the organization and activities of the Maize Genetics Conference Steering Committee. Changes and amendments are expected as the Committee moves forward and its service to the scientific community evolves.

Section I: Purpose of the Maize Genetics Conference Steering Committee

The Maize Genetics Conference Steering Committee (SC) shall be responsible for the organization, content, and execution of the Annual Maize Genetics Conference (MGC). The SC shall work with the Maize Genetics Executive Committee (EC) to facilitate communication of community-based issues through the MGC.

Section II: Maize Genetics Conference Steering Committee Organization

The SC shall be made up of 10 voting members, including 1 from the EC on three-year terms, and voluntary members as needed to support SC activities. Each year the SC shall recruit new Maize Co-operators to serve on the SC. Each year the SC shall elect one of the 1^st year members as co-chair for the SC. The co-chair will assume chair responsibilities in the subsequent year.

Section III: Maize Genetics Conference Steering Committee Affiliation

The SC shall maintain legal affiliation with an organization providing implements necessary to carry out contractual, fiduciary, and underwriting arrangements pertaining to the MGC organization and execution.

Section IV: Committee Activities:

The activities assumed by the SC include, but are not limited to:

1: Convening an annual SC meeting coinciding with the MGC to facilitate SC functions.

A: A meeting agenda shall be distributed to all committee members.

B: Minutes of the meeting taken by the current co-chair shall be archived

2: Fundraising to finance the MGC

A: Meeting grant application(s) shall be submitted to federal agencies

B: Donations shall be solicited

3: Advising and approving MGC activities including, but not limited to:

A: Inviting speakers

B: Selecting and coordinating venues

C: Organizing the MGC program

D: Fundraising

E: Awards

4: Maintaining contemporary guidelines to direct decisions regarding but not limited to:

A: Inviting speakers

i: Scientific merit

ii: Gender and topic balance

iii: Career development

B: Selecting venues

i: International participation

ii: Inclusiveness

C: Organizing the MGC program

i: Talk sessions

ii: Poster sessions

iii: Workshops

iv: Community forums

v: EC reports

D: Awards

i: Poster contests

ii: Service recognition

This original version adopted by the SC on March 10, 2006.

Summary of Community Forum

48^th Annual Maize Genetics Conference

Friday March 9, 2006

Talk by Jane Silverthorne, NSF

After the genome�.

Learning from other genomic and post-genomic efforts

Comments on the importance of workshops in developing tools
Mt Fuji analogy � there�s more than one mountain to climb and planning should be ongoing
Need to re-evaluate at each milestone and even before the milestone

History of Arabidopsis sequencing effort

1990 - seminal plan that included international cooperation and coordination / plan for the db stock center � decision was made, for example, that full length cDNAs were important
1994 - NSF meeting
1996 - sequencing project
1998 - NPGI accelerated project
2000 - sequence completed ahead of schedule

History of Arabidopsis post-genomic effort and planning

1995 - planning for post-sequencing effort started
1998 - tools discussion
2000 - Salk meeting lead to 2010 program
2010 - program that included important midway checkpoints (see recent report http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/bio0601/bio0601.pdf) and was driven by biology as well as tool development

History of rice sequencing effort was somewhat different because there was already an international and industry effort in place

1997 � sequencing project was already underway
1999 � planning session for functional genomics started early and lead to IRFGC (International Rice Functional Genomics Consortium)
2002 - first announcement from combined industry, US and international effort
2004 � �finished� genome announcement
IRFGC � developed similar plan to Arabidopsis 2010 program but focused on agronomic traits, not just driven by biology

Lessons �

Planning must be organized by scientists and the plans should be science-driven
IP materials and data release policies must be spelled out
IP clarity is especially for crop plant
Plan needs to be flexible to accommodate new technology and new events
Coordination of db activities is particularly important, especially possibility of incorporating tools from other countries
Partnerships are most efficient and very important

Talk by V. Sundaresan

After the genome: Lessons from Arabidopsis and Rice

History of developing -omics since yeast was sequenced 10 years ago

Resources and tools that have been important for Arabidopsis

Proper gene annotations
Reverse genetics tools
Expression arrays of all types (transcriptome and proteome)
Full-length cDNAs
Proteomic tools
Stock centers with full availability and user friendly
Unrestricted access -no MTA

Note that all Arabidopsis tools lead to the Salk lines, one of most important tools developed but others include: affy chips, 2hybrid screening tools, RNAi tools, VIGS, etc

For rice, same needs and same tools

Stock centers have been less satisfactory for rice community because US (Arkansas) focuses on germplasm primarily
Japan and Philippines also have centers but transport and access is restricted.

Road map of needs in post-genomics in rice

Need to strengthen genetic resources
Need to be able to translate research for breeders
Need hi thru put phenotyping tools
Need activation tagging lines
Need fully efficient transformation of elite lines and decisions about which line to focus on.
Need comprehensive stock center in US
More international integration is still needed
Accessibility still a major issue

For maize community � comparative genomics tools with rice very important.

Panel Discussion: see list of posed questions by panel members

Open Forum

Comments and discussion from maize community

When projects end what happens to resources that have been developed?

Community needs to be able to access and submit information
Includes the need to simplify bioinformatics access
The information is all out there but it is currently not centralized and have to go to individual and unique websites, learn all new tools each time � must be integrated
There are many home pages but no guide to how to navigate, i.e. no single one stop shop that consolidates info

MaizeGDB as portal

There needs to be more than links to other home pages, needs to be integration
It is up to the researchers to establish and if there is a need, researchers should contact Carolyn Lawrence

Central field space

Needed for smaller institutions and for those researchers who can�t handle big growouts
Need continued community phenotypic screens

NCGA comments

Want to help maintain focus on agronomic significant tissues because NCGA needs the basic research to improve and increase production and ensure productivity
What are the next genomes that need to be sequenced?
How are the decisions made for what is most efficient? NCGA looks to the community for the next genome to be sequenced
NCGA also needs to understand the connections between the basic science and the applications so they can bring specific examples back to Congress.
How do we finally tie back to economic issues?

For comparative genomics, look to the human genome as a model

Now there are 5-6 mammalian genomes available and effort now is to fill in diversity
Now is the time to think abut having more cereal genomes since sorghum, brachypodium, rice, maize are all on the horizon
But to accomplish this informatics resources need to be integrated so that cross genome comparisons can be made for agronomic traits, QTL etc
Bioinformatics has been a major investment for human genomics, involved major integration issues

Stock center needs to be enlarged and supported

More mutant lines are becoming available and the concern is that the stock center will be overwhelmed
The stock center needs more resources to propagate, maintain and distribute