Infoday su Horizon 2020 - Societal Challenge 1 "Salute, cambiamento demografico e benessere" 2018 2020
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Infoday su Horizon 2020
Societal Challenge 1
“Salute, cambiamento demografico e benessere”
2018 – 2020
Giuseppe Spoto
Università degli Studi di Catania, Dipartimento Scienze Chimiche
Consorzio Interuniversitario I.N.B.B.
gspoto@unict.it
Assessorato della Salute, Policlinico P. Giaccone, Palermo, 19 Gennaio 2018
An Integrated Platform for Developing Brain
Cancer Diagnostic Techniques
Partners:
• Call: H2020-MSCA-ITN-2017 • Plymouth University (UK) (coordinator)
• University College London (UK)
• Type of Action: MSCA-ITN-ETN • Imperial College London (UK)
• Single stage: 10 Jan 2017, • Stockholm University (Svezia)
proposals 1714 • Karolinska Institutet (Svezia)
• Duration: 48 months • Università degli Studi di Catania (Italia)
• Start Date: 01 Jan 2018 • Italian National Cancer Institute
Regina Elena (Italia)
• Maximum EU Grant amount: • Scriba Nanotecnologie Srl (Italia)
3.687.311,88 • MTAgroup (Italia)
• Duration: 48 months • The Hyve (Paesi Bassi)
• Grant agreement: 764281 • Radboud University (Paesi Bassi)
• KU Leuven University (Belgio)
ULTRAsensitive PLAsmonic devices for early
CAncer Diagnosis
Type of Action: Research and Innovation Actions
Focus area: Personalising Health and Care
Call: H2020-PHC-2014-two-stage
Topic: PHC-10-2014: Development of new diagnostic tools
and technologies: in vitro devices, assays and platforms
Stage 1: 11 March 2014; proposals: 462
Stage 2: 19 August 2014; proposals: 132
Maximum EU Grant amount: 6.026.456 €
Start date: 01/05/2015
Duration: 42 months
Grant Agreement no.: 633937
www.ultraplacad.eu
The consortium
National Institute of Biostructures and Biosystems
IT RTD
(Univ. Catania – Coord., Univ. Firenze, Univ. Parma)
Austrian Institute of Technology AT RTD
Institute of Photonics and Electronics CZ RTD
University of Twente NL UNI
University of Siegen DE UNI
University of Ferrara IT UNI
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland FI RTD
Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena IT HSP
Scriba Nanotecnologie IT SME
Ginolis Oy FI SME
Future Diagnostics Solutions NL SME
Horiba Jobin Yvon SAS FR IND
Amires s.r.o. CZ SME
www.ultraplacad.eu
Early diagnosis and personalized cancer
treatment: bottlenecks
Biomarkers (companion diagnostics)
Cost
Easy and timely access to diagnostics
Gold standard: tissue biopsy
Limitations
Invasive approach
Potential clinical complications
Snapshot:
difficulty in accounting for tumor heterogeneity
Subject to tumor accessibility and patient condition
2.6 million
No frequent monitoring breast and prostate
biopsies per year
Costly in the U.S.*
*M. Denis The Pathologist, 6, 2015, 33.
Liquid biopsy N. Bellassai, G. Spoto. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 408, 2016, 7255.
Liquid biopsy
Advantages
Non invasive
Assesment of tumor heterogeneity
No subject to tumor accessibility
and patient condition
Frequent monitoring
Faster and cheaper than tissue biopsy
Crowley, E. et al. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 10:472-484
1000
Scopus
Entry: "liquid biopsy"
Published papers
800
600
400
200
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
https://www.gatc-biotech.com/en/company/blog/posts/the-liquid-biopsy-market-where-is-it-heading.html
Aug. 2016
Detection of cfDNA and ctDNA:
challenges
Concentration
ctDNA in plasma. 640 patients
Bettegowda et al. Sci Transl Med. 19, 2014, 6(224)Surface Plasmons Localized SP
Lycurgus Cup (British Museum)
PCR-free detection of °39 mutation
in human genomic DNA
**
* = 40, pThe aim
Novel in vitro diagnostic system for minimally invasive
colorectal cancer early diagnosis, prognosis, patient
follow-up and therapy efficacy assessment.
www.ultraplacad.euColorectal cancer in Europe Second most frequent cancer (471,000 in 2012) (breast cancer is the most frequent) Second most common cause of death from cancer (228,000 in 2012) (lung cancer is the most common) Equal distribution among women and men (Incidence: 255,000 male, 216,000 women. Mortality: 120,000 male, 108,000 women). Responsible for more than 10% of all cancer deaths and for 3% of all deaths within the Europe
Colorectal cancer diagnosis and
prognosis
Actionable biomarkers
DNA: all-RAS mutations
(standard biomarkers for prognosis, follow-up and
therapy assessment from solid tissue biopsy)
RNA: microRNAs
(miR-221/222, miR-141)
Proteins: autoantibodies against tumor
associated antigens
(a-TAAs)Bimodal industrial prototype NESPRI: Nanoparticle-enhanced surface plasmon resonance imaging DNA and microRNAs PEFSI: Plasmon-enhanced fluorescence spectroscopy imaging a-TAAs
Bimodal industrial prototype
Disposable chip: low cost production
Cosa abbiamo imparato
(Evaluation summary report)
• Criterion 1: Excellence
Avanzamento rispetto allo stato dell’arte
Elevata transdisciplinarità
• Criterion 2: Impact
Sostenibilità dei sistemi sanitari
Impatto clinico
Potenzialità in termini di commercializzazione
• Criterion 3: Quality and efficiency of the implementation
Composizione del consorzio bilanciata e complementarità tra partner
Forte coinvolgimento di partner industriali
Bilanciata e chiara distribuzione del lavoro e dei ruoli
Distribuzione delle risorse corrispondente agli impegniCosa abbiamo imparato
preparazione della proposta
• Prevedere una tempistica adeguata per la
predisposizione della proposta:
Two-stage submission scheme …. Ottimo!
• Impegno e pieno coinvolgimento di coordinatore e
partner
• Ruolo dei partner nella preparazione della proposta
Competenze specifiche per la raccolta e l’organizzazione
delle informazioni chiave. Favorire contributi che
forniscano una visione critica della proposta.Cosa abbiamo imparato
• Definizione ed organizzazione del consorzio:
Il consorzio e la sua organizzazione contribuiscono a rendere
credibile la proposta e ad ottenere i risultati attesi;
Ogni partner è funzionale al raggiungimento dello scopo
fissato;
Partner industriali (SME; ricaduta economica sull’Europa);
Ruoli:
Project Manager, Dissemination Manager, Exploitation
Manager, Innovation ManagerCosa abbiamo imparato Gantt chart, il cuore del progetto
Cosa abbiamo imparato
• Definizione ed organizzazione del consorzio:
Genere
• Fostering gender balance in Horizon 2020 research
teams
• Ensuring gender balance in decision-makingCosa abbiamo imparato
• Definizione ed organizzazione del consorzio:
Genere
• Fostering gender balance in Horizon 2020 research
teams
• Ensuring gender balance in decision-making
• Integrating gender/sex analysis in research and
innovation (R&I) contentCosa abbiamo imparato Integrating gender/sex analysis in research and innovation (R&I) content http://www.ncpacademy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20151113-Training-Slides-for-NCPs-Gender-Equality-in-H2020.pdf
Cosa abbiamo imparato http://www.ncpacademy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20151113-Training-Slides-for-NCPs-Gender-Equality-in-H2020.pdf
Cosa abbiamo imparato http://www.ncpacademy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20151113-Training-Slides-for-NCPs-Gender-Equality-in-H2020.pdf
Cosa abbiamo imparato
Cosa abbiamo imparato
Technology Readiness Levels
Da quale TRL parte il progetto? Il bando definisce un TRL atteso a fine
progetto? Se no, quale TRL a fine progetto? Quale salto di TRL tra inizio e fine
progetto è realizzabile?
TRL 1: basic principles observed
TRL 2: technology concept formulated
TRL 3: experimental proof of concept
TRL 4: technology validated in lab
TRL 5: technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant
environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
TRL 6: technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant
environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
TRL 7: system prototype demonstration in operational environment
TRL 8: system complete and qualified
TRL 9: actual system proven in operational environment (competitive
manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)External Advisory Board Jola Gore-Booth, Founder and Chief Executive Officer at EuropaColon Patrice M. Milos, President and Chief Executive Officer at Medley Genomics, Providence Maurizio Ferrari, President of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Markus Paulmichl, Member (Vice Chair) of the Pharmacogenomics Working Party at European Medicines Agency David N. Reinhoudt, responsible for the Radboud Nanomedicine Alliance at Radboud University Nijmegen Francesca Spinella, Scientific coordinator at Laboratorio GENOMA Group srl Santiago Valor, Chief Medical Officer at SYNLAB Group, Madrid
Da non dimenticare
Grant Agreement
(8 mesi da deadline alla firma del grant agreement)
Timetable for grant preparation
7.1 3 weeks after the date of this letter is the deadline for the submission of the grant
agreement data, including annexes. Following the assessment of the submitted version of
the grant agreement data, you will have a two-week deadline to submit the final version
taking into consideration all requirements highlighted by the Project Officer,
7.2 6 weeks after the date of this letter is the deadline for the electronic signature of the
participants’ declarations of honour.
The Commission foresees proceeding with the signature of the grant agreement within 3
months after the date of this letter.
Failure to respect the deadlines indicated above will be considered as a wish not to enter
into, or continue with, the grant preparation and, therefore, to withdraw your proposal.
In such a case, the Commission reserves the right to initiate the procedures to reject your
proposal, unless alternative arrangements have been accepted by the Commission.Da non dimenticare Grant Agreement
Da non dimenticare
Grant Agreement
29.2 Open access to scientific publications
Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-
reviewed scientific publications relating to its results.
In particular, it must:
(a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electronic
copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication
in a repository for scientific publications;
Moreover, the beneficiary must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed to
validate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications.
(b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest:
(i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or
(ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social
sciences and humanities) in any other case.
(c) ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify the
deposited publication...Perché farlo?
Pros Cons
Risorse per la ricerca Tantissimo lavoro in più
Reputazione Assumere responsabilità
Imparare tante nuove cose significative
Lavorare quotidianamente Dover rispettare scadenze
in un contesto internazionale continue
Modificare radicalmente Operare in contesti locali poco
l’approccio al lavoro di ricerca organizzati e delle volte non
cooperativiFinanziamento (MEuro) Proposte finanziate
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
400
500
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1000
Lo La
m zio Lo La
b m zi o
Pi ard b
em ia Pi ard
o em ia
To nt on
sc e t
an Em e
Em a To i l i
i sc a
Li l i a a
gu Ve na
Ve ria ne
n Li to
Tr eto g
en Tr ur i a
C en
am tino C
pa am tino
ni pa
a n
Fr
iu Pu ia
P u li gl
ia
g Fr
M lia iu
a U
Sa rch m li
rd e b
eg M r ia
ar
U na
m ch
Ab bria Si e
ci
ru Ab lia
zz r
Si o Sa uzz
ci rd o
C lia
al e
C gna
B abr al
as ia B ab
ili
c Va asi ria
lle li c
47 finanziate
Va M ata
l l e ol D' ata
914 sottoposte
D ise Ao
'A s
10.3 MEuro
os M ta
ta ol
is
e
Euro per abitante % di successo
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6
8
10
12
14
L La
Tr azio
en z
Li i o
ti gu
Li n o
g U r ia
Pi ur m
e ia P i br
Lo mo em ia
m nte o
ba Tr nte
e
To rdi Lo nt
sc a m in o
Perché farlo?
an ba
a rd
Fr i
iu Em a
Em li ili
Ve a
U ilia n
m To eto
b sc
M ria an
ar
c a
Ve he Fr
n iu
Sa e
rd to P li
e Sa ugl
A gna rd ia
br eg
C uz M na
am zo
ar
pa C
n am che
Pu ia pa
B n
as glia Va Ab ia
ili lle ruz
c
C ata D zo
al 'A
ab o
r C sta
al
Si ia
ci B br a
Va M lia a s ia
l l e ol ili
ca
Dati ricavati da: APRE. Una panoramica sulla partecipazione italiana a Horizon 2020: La fotografia a metà percorso. 2017
D ise
M ta
2,04
'A
os ol
ta is
Si e
ci
Horizon 2020: 2014-2016
li a
Media EU= 14,7%
Media ITA= 11.9 %
% successo= (finanziate/sottoposte) *100
5,1 %You can also read
