1. S10 Instrumentation Grants:
Strategies for Increased Coordination & Success
Jill Jividen, PhD, UMOR
Donna Ray, PhD, Biosciences Initiative
October 24, 2019

2. Agenda
What’s an S10 grant?
Eligibility
Proposal requirements
U-M Success Rates & Benchmarking
Developing a Strong Proposal
Timeline & Application Process
Faculty Panel

3. Agenda
Faculty Panel
Roger Cone, PhD, Molecular & Integrative Physiology
Brandon Ruotolo, PhD, Chemistry
Malcolm Low, MD, PhD, Physiology
Meredith Morgan, PhD, Radiation Oncology
Kristina Hakansson, PhD, Chemistry

4. NIH S10 Instrumentation Programs
What’s an S10?
NIH S10 Instrumentation Programs
Funded by the Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP)
To purchase state-of-the-art, specialized, commercially available instruments to enhance research of NIH-funded investigators
Often too expensive for 1 PI to shoulder cost
Must be used on a shared basis (3 or more NIH-funded PIs with substantial need for requested instrument)
One-year awards; matching funds not required, but “appropriate level” of support expected, e.g., infrastructure, space, technical personnel, service contracts for maintenance, etc.

5. What’s an S10? FOA types Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG)
$50K-$600K (FY20: $35M to fund 75 awards)
Biomedical research only, not clinical services
Shared Instrumentation for Animal Research Grant (SIFAR)
$50K-$750K (FY20: $6M to fund 12 awards)
Priority given to clusters of commercially available instruments, not single instruments
High-End Instrumentation Grant Program (HEI)
$600K-$2M (FY20: $30M to fund 25 awards)
Anticipated deadline: May 2020

6. Which one is right for us?
What is cost of the most expensive instrument in the application?
<$50K
>$600K
$50K-$600K
Not eligible.
Is the instrumentation specifically used to support animal research?
HEI Grant
yes no
Is the system a cluster or single instrument?
SIG Grant
cluster
single
SIFAR Grant
SIG Grant
Adapted from Vanderbilt University Medical Center

7. What’s an S10? S10s do not support:
Instruments with base cost <$50K (SIG & SIFAR), or <$600K (HEI).
Multiple instruments, or a series of complementary related instruments (SIG & HEI).
SIFAR only allows clusters or integrated systems, no single instrument requests.
Software, unless it is needed to operate instrument and/or necessary for the generation of high-quality output data from the instrument.
Instruments used for clinical (billable) care or instruction.
General purpose equipment.
Proposals to advance design of existing technology or to develop new instrumentation.

8. Coordination with Core Facilities
What’s an S10?
Coordination with Core Facilities
“Whenever practical, the S10 funded instrument should be integrated in a centralized core facility, to encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, research groups, and departments, and to foster a collaborative multidisciplinary environment.”

9. Eligibility PI eligibility
Concurrent applications for same or similar equipment are highly discouraged. UMOR runs an internal “Call for Intent” to prevent duplicate requests.
PI eligibility
S10 PIs do not need to have NIH-funded grants (e.g., core directors)
Must demonstrate they have relevant instrument expertise
Must demonstrate they can perform necessary scientific and administrative oversight
Must have institutional affiliation
Must be registered in eRA Commons
Multi PDs/PIs not allowed

10. Eligibility Major Users Must have substantial need
Must be PIs on relevant grant support (not limited to NIH, but must be biomedical research)
At least 3 Major Users on proposal must have “substantial, multi-year” NIH-funded research awards (not limited to R01s)
Only one PI of an NIH center grant may be listed as a Major User

11. Administrative Requirements
Annual Advisory Council meetings and reports
Definition and justification of Accessible User Time (AUT)
Inventory of similar instruments at the institution, with justification/documentation of why these are not available to the PI and user group (Letter of “Non-support”)
5-year financial plan
Institutional support for backup of the financial plan for 5 years from installation of the instrument or for its effective lifetime
Annual instrument reports for 5 years after award
Plan about how users will be instructed and reminded about citing the S10 award in their publications and how their compliance will be verified

12. Proposal Requirements
Always follow FOA instructions
Project Summary/Abstract: <30 lines of text
Project Narrative: 2-3 sentences, for general audience
Bibliography & Reference Cited: publications listed demonstrate researchers’ expertise in requested instrument or are relevant to research projects supported by instrument; no page limits.
Equipment attachment:
Description of requested instrument, including manufacture, model number, specific features and accessories;
Detailed budget breakdown of instrument and accessories, with any tax & import duties;
Itemized quote (with any discount) from vendor;
Must be scanned and combined in single PDF
Senior/Key Person: profile of PD/PI, Major Users, Minor Users, and technical personnel, as applicable
Required attachment: Current & Pending Support for the PD/PI only at time of submission; if none, state “None” in form

13. Proposal Requirements
Other Attachments (always follow FOA instructions)
Instrumentation Plan (in lieu of “Research Plan”)
No page limit for entire Instrumentation Plan, but page limitations apply to specific sections (see next slide)
Letters of Support (or “Non-Support”): no page limit
Biosketches: Major/Minor Users and technical personnel; no page limit; upload as single PDF
Appendix: not allowed

14. Instrumentation Plan Always follow FOA instructions
Introduction: <3 pp (resubmissions only)
Justification of Need*: 9 pp
Technical Expertise*: 3 pp
Research Projects*: must not exceed 30 pp (note other page limit instructions)
Summary Table(s): 6 pp
Administration (Organizational/Management Plan)*: 6 pp
Special Use Instrument (SUI): only if applicable (HEI)
Institutional Commitment*: 3 pp
Overall Benefit: 3 pp
*reviewed and scored for scientific and technical merit

15. Instrumentation Plan Always follow FOA instructions
Justification of Need*: 9 pp; includes SUI (for HEI grants, if applicable)
Name the requested instrument
Compare the performance of the requested model with similar instruments
Justify need for specific features and special accessories of requested instrument (each accessory must be used by at least 3 Major Users)
Justify the need for software (must be integrated in operation of instrument and/or necessary for high-quality output data
Preliminary data: not required, but you may include to justify your choice
Inventory similar instruments existing at your institution or nearby; if they are “unavailable,” include a Letter of (Non)Support that explains why
Define and justify Accessible User Time (AUT)
Technical Expertise*: 3 pp
Who will set up and run the instrument?
Who is responsible for maintenance and safe operation?
Who will train new users?
Sample preparation? Consultation on experimental design? Support for data collection/management/analysis?
*reviewed and scored for scientific and technical merit

16. Instrumentation Plan Always follow FOA instructions
Research Projects*: do not exceed 30 pp
Section may be subdivided into:
a.) Specific Research Topics, or
b.) Research Projects of Major Users: <4 pp per Major User
If appropriate, section should conclude with subsection “Other Users’ Projects”: 4 pp total (all Minor and Other Users)
Describe the potential of the instrument to enhances Users’ projects
Focus on benefit of requested instrument; do NOT copy/paste the Specific Aims from funded applications
*reviewed and scored for scientific and technical merit

17. Instrumentation Plan Always follow FOA instructions
Summary Table(s): 6 pp
Re-state AUT in annual hours (as introduced in the Justification of Need section)
Insert table summarizing Research Projects of Major Users (see FOA for required fields)
Insert table summarizing Research Projects of Minor Users
Insert table summarizing Users’ needs for accessories (if applicable)
Administration (Organizational/Management Plan)*: 6 pp
What is institutional plan to administer the grant? E.g., Allocate time to Users? Train Users?
Describe Advisory Committee (AC) & plan for annual reporting
Plan for managing access (as appropriate)
Financial plan for long-term operation and maintenance:
include a table for Year 1 of operation with anticipated expenditures/income (and how estimates were derived)
Include projected changes for Years 2-5, e.g., salary support for expert personnel/operators, maintenance, supplies, software/licenses, income (such as from recharge rates, grants or institutional support)
*reviewed and scored for scientific and technical merit

18. Instrumentation Plan Always follow FOA instructions
Institutional Commitment*: 3 pp
Describe institutional infrastructure available to support instrument, including space & personnel
Confirm commitment to provide backup of the financial plan for 5 years after installation, or for its effective lifetime
Overall Benefit: 3 pp
Explain how the instrument will impact NIH-funded research and contribute the institution’s long-range biomedical research goals
*reviewed and scored for scientific and technical merit

19. Proposal Requirements
Always follow FOA instructions
Letters of Support
Upload as single PDF, filename “Letters of Support” under Other Attachments. No limit.
Include, as appropriate:
From institutional officials
Affirming institutional back-up of proposed financial plan
Detailing inventory of U-M instruments (as noted in Justification of Need section)
Required: Institutional letter pertaining to performance of previous S10-awarded instruments will come from UMOR

20. How does U-M compare? Institution 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
CORNELL UNIVERSITY 3 2 1 7
DUKE UNIVERSITY 6
HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 4 14
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NEW YORK STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY CENTER
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 5
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO
STANFORD UNIVERSITY 19
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO 8
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO 13
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 11
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON 12
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 22
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

21. How does U-M compare? Institution 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
$1,968,218
$3,398,090
$364,071
$750,000
$6,480,379
DUKE UNIVERSITY
$917,788
$2,451,679
$600,000
$3,969,467
HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
$143,585
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
$598,800
$1,767,290
$2,966,090
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
$2,408,870
$679,977
$1,909,632
$744,660
$1,499,103
$7,242,242
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
$180,445
$1,000,000
$1,780,445
NEW YORK STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY CENTER
$1,717,890
$2,317,890
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
$359,704
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
$2,282,720
$257,840
$2,169,765
$1,163,390
$490,446
$6,364,161
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
$615,056
$567,035
$1,344,491
$3,126,582
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO
$361,956
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
$2,395,486
$3,544,474
$2,700,190
$4,821,209
$14,061,359
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY
$1,200,000
$590,290
$979,500
$1,462,692
$265,320
$4,497,802
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES
$2,112,468
$593,806
$105,866
$1,735,800
$4,547,940
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO
$1,193,680
$2,435,205
$309,742
$5,138,627
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
$1,915,211
$4,934,300
$1,130,754
$1,978,638
$10,558,903
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR
$883,138
$1,695,180
$3,178,318
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
$3,475,809
$404,955
$2,831,741
$379,211
$7,691,716
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
$599,000
$1,111,318
$1,008,023
$329,513
$3,047,854
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN
$489,417
$529,200
$1,018,617
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
$1,100,000
$1,164,200
$516,040
$396,050
$3,176,290
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON
$720,355
$3,390,573
$225,670
$3,265,934
$7,602,532
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY
$1,306,407
$3,607,982
$4,825,353
$1,879,819
$1,148,089
$12,767,650
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
$1,914,778
$930,059
$2,881,822
$2,545,778
$4,353,923
$12,626,360

22. Breakdown by instrument

23. TIMELINE Fall (before deadline) Identify the technology
Talk to vendors; get quotes
Assemble team of NIH-funded Major Users
Coordinate with cores
January (expected)
FOA opens; UMOR announces call for intent
January/February
Prepare demo samples
Demo selected instruments
Analyze demo data
February
UMOR deadline—call for intent
March/April
Write technical justification
Write business plan
Review Major User projects
April (early/mid)
Review by Faculty Panel
May (expected)
NIH deadline

24. Resources
S10 Instrumentation Programs:
S10 Program FAQs:
Macaluso, Frank P. “A Guide to Submitting a Successful NIH S10 Shared Instrumentation Grant Application,” Microsc. Microanal. 24 (Suppl 1): , 2018.
Principal Investigators Association, with Agilent Technologies: “Shared Instrumentation: How to Win the S10 Grant,” March 2013.
Proposal examples: UMich, Penn