From Bioblast
Jump to: navigation, search

Participants interested in the COST MitoScore network (alphabetical according to COST Countries)

From the COST instructions: "Please note that the list of participants will not be shown to the assessors to guarantee the anonymity of the proposers and avoid any conflict of interest. If your proposal involves more than 10 different participants, just include 10 of them; the full list will be requested if you are invited to submit a full proposal. Remember that there should be participants from at least 5 different COST countries. Please start the list with yourself and your institution."

AT Austria

Gnaiger Erich, Medical University of Innsbruck, AT

Graier Wolfgang, University of Graz, AT

Breitenbach Michael, University of Salzburg, AT

AU Australia

Ballard Bill, University of New South Wales, AU

BE Belgium

Braeckman Bart, Gent University, BE

Votion Dominique-Marie, University of Liège, BE

Arnould Thierry, University of Namur FUNDP, BE

CH Switzerland

Lundby Carsten; Gorr Thomas, University of Zürich, CH

CZ Czech Republic

Zurmanova Jitka, Fisar Zdenek, Charles University Prague, CZ

Cervinkova Zuzana, Charles University Prague in Hradec Kralove, CZ

Houstek Josef, Drahota Zdenek, Kopecky Jan, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Rep. Prague, CZ

Modrianský Martin, Palacky University in Olomouc, CZ

DE Germany

Arnold Susanne, RWTH Aachen University, DE

Brandt Ulrich, Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt, DE

Eckert Schamim, Eckert Gunter P., Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, DE

Osiewacz Heinz, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, DE

Klaus Susanne, German Institute of Human Nutrition, DE

Mairbaeurl Haimo, University of Heidelberg, DE

Roden Michael, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, DE

Rohrbach Susanne, Weissmann Norbert, Sommer Natascha, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, DE

Radermacher Peter, Calzia Enrico, University Hospital Ulm, DE

DK Denmark

Boushel RC, Bispebjerg Hospital Copenhagen, DK

Dela Flemming, University of Copenhagen, DK

EE Estonia

Saks Valdur, Kaambre Tuuli, Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics Tallinn, EE

Seppet Enn, University of Tartu, EE

ES Spain

Acuna-Castroviejo Dario, Universidad de Granada, ES

Garcia-Roves Pablo M., Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, ES

Bermudez Mas Jordi, Perales Jose Carlos, University of Barcelona, ES

Fernandez-Ayala Daniel Jose Moreno, Pablo de Olavide University, ES

Abellan Miquel Mulero , Rovira i Virigili University, ES

FI Finland

Sanz Alberto, University of Tampere, FI

FR France

Rustin Pierre; Hopital Necker-Enfants Malades, FR

Rossignol Rodrigue; Jean-Pierre, Université Victor Segalen-Bordeaux 2, FR

Collin Anne, INRA Nouzilly, FR

Devin Anne, CNRS Institute Bordeaux, FR

HU Hungary

Tretter Laszlo, Chinopoulos Christos, Semmelweis University Budapest, HU

IT Italy

Clementi Emilio, De Palma Clara, University of Milano, IT

Grassi Bruno, University of Udine, IT

LI Lithuania

Borutaite Vilma, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Kaunas, LT

NL The Netherlands

Nicolay Klaas, Prompers Jeanine, Eindhoven University of Technology, NL

Schrauwen Patrick, Maastricht University, NL

Koopman Werner J H, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, NL

Keijer Jaap, Wageningen University, NL

NO Norway

Egelandsdal Bjorg, Norwegian University of Life Sciences As, NO

Karl Johan, University of Bergen, NO

NZ New Zealand

Anthony J.R., University of Auckland, NZ

PL Poland

Dembinska-Kiec Aldona, Jagiellonian University Medical College Krakow, PL

Watala Cezary, Labieniec-Watala Magdalena, Medical University of Lodz, PL

Szewczyk Adam, Mariusz R., Duszynski Jerzy, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, PL

RO Romania

Muntean Danina, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, RO

RS Republic of Serbia

Stancic Ana, Institute for Biological Research Sinisa Stankovic, RS

Korac Aleksandra, University of Belgrade, RS

SE Sweden

Elmer Eskil, Lund University, SE

Larsen Filip J., Schiffer Tomas A., Weitzberg Eddie, Lundberg Jon O., Karolinska Institute Stockholm, SE

Nedergaard Jan, Shabalina Irina, Cannon Barbara, Stockholm University, SE

SK Slovakia

Sumbalova Zuzana, Comenius University in Bratislava, SK

UK United Kingdom

Speakman John R., Selman Colin, Aberdeen Centre for Energy Regulation and Obesity, UK

Brown Guy C.; Murray Andrew, University of Cambridge, UK

Gourlay Campbell W., University of Kent, UK

Peers Chris, Boyle John, University of Leeds, UK

Duchen Michael, University College London, UK

ZA South Africa

Essop Faadiel, Stellenbosch University, ZA


The positive response received from more than 60 research groups in 24 COST countries was highly encouraging, more than expected on the basis of our limited primary circulation, and it is more than COST projects are designed for. As a result, we will (1) proceed full-power with the COST project application, and (2) at the same time explore the options for larger frameworks of support for a major mitochondrial physiology network, particularly considering that the number of relevant research groups would more than triple if North America, South America, and Asia are involved. A pdf file of the original message is available: File:Network MitoScore.pdf

 Your feedback reflects the fact that ‘mitochondrial physiology’ has become one of the hot topics 
 in research aimed at finding solutions to the present challenges in our health care system.

The Questionnaire assisted in the formulation of a ‘Preliminary Proposal’ for a COST network. COST projects support exclusively networking and training activities, based on independently funded scientific projects of each participant (duration: 4 years).

MitoScore is an initiative of MitoCom. If you are interested to participate in the MitoScore COST proposal, please send us this brief information:

Partner Summary

A. A brief summary of your currently funded research projects contributing to our general topic: “Participants interested in network (name, institution and country, maximum 2000 characters, approx. 300 words

B. Questionnaire – delete or add as appropriate (duration 4 years):

1. Main topics studied

1.1. Life style and fitness (sedentary, active, athletic)

1.2 Aging (ontogenetic development, senescence, aging)

1.3 Degenerative and cardiovascular diseases, cancer (specify)

1.4 Inherited diseases (specify)

2. Human studies and animal models

2.1. Studies on humans

2.2. Animal models (specify)

3. Tissues and species

3.1. Species and evolutionary perspectives (specify)

3.2. Tissues and cell cultures (specify)

4. Methods and mitochondrial preparations

4.1. Methods (respirometry, mt-membrane potential, ROS production, redox regulation, .. specify)

4.2. Isolated mitochondria, tissue homogenates, permeabilized cells or muscle fibres, intact cells, organ, intact organism, .. (specify)

5. Propose max. two additional partner institutions (academic or industrial).

6. Are you or have you been involved in another COST initiative? Is there any overlap or potential synergy with another COST initiative? (specify)

Time schedule for COST project application

1. Pre-proposal

1.1. Partner description: 2011 Aug. 19 to 22

1.2. MitoScore discussion at MiP2011 in Bordeaux: Sep. 08

1.3. Summary of feedback: Sep. 27

1.4. Submission: 2011 Sep. 30

2. Information from COST on acceptance: 2011 Nov. 25

3. Full project application: 2012 Jan. 27

COST Guidelines for PRE-PROPOSAL


This part should be a introduction to describe, in general terms, why it is desirable to launch the COST Action in question. It should summarise the previous research and the current state of knowledge in the field of the proposal. It could include an analysis of relevant research in the EU Framework Programmes and other European fora. It may be useful also to compare the European research with that in, for example, the USA, Canada, Japan or other parts of the World.

In addition it should explain the reasons for the proposed cooperation with a distinction between the objectives, the expected results and the means to achieve them. As far as possible, this should be done with emphasis on immediate or future applications envisaged, so that even a reader who is not a specialist in the field obtains a clear picture of the expected benefits of the Action.

You may briefly describe also possible complementarity with ongoing or planned research in the EU Framework Programme and other European organisations such as EUREKA, ESF etc., as one of the goals of COST is to avoid duplication of efforts in Europe.

Indicate the background of the proposal, the specific problems the network wants to solve and the goal the network would like to achieve. This part should demonstrate that the proposal addresses real current scientific and or technical issues with a high relevance for European society.


This part should explain the expected benefits of the proposal itselfwithout the networking aspects. These benefits could be societal,scientific or in the field of technology. There may be also other benefits for other areas which should be elaborated here.


This part should clearly indicate what one expects to achieve through the Action in particular what will be the expected impact of this Action.It is very important to explicitly state all the objectives, whenever possible in quantitative terms making it easier to evaluate, how well the Action may achieve its goals. As far as possible, the likely end users of expected results should be clearly indicated. In formulating objectives one has to distinguish between the aims (something toward which effort is directed) and the means to achieve them (methods or ways for accomplishing something). Carefully avoid all specifications of means - e.g. scientific problems to be solved as well as research tasks - as they belong to part d) Scientific programme.


Here the most important research tasks to be carried out should be described (the structure of the work plan), with necessary explanation of how they will lead to achieving the objectives. In particular the innovative elements of the proposals and its originality have to be presented.

You should remember that scientists that have not participated in the preparation are also entitled to join the network at a later stage if their countries sign the MoU. For that reason, the proposal must provide an open and flexible framework making it possible for any interested country to join the Action.

It will greatly enhance the clarity of the proposal if Section D is wholly focused on outlining the scientific content of the Action, while all organisational matters such as setting up Working Groups are dealt with in Section E.


The main purpose of this part is to give a clear picture of the arrangement of the Action When you have clarified the reasons for the proposed co-operation, you should explain why COST seems to offer the best framework for it, for as compared with, e.g., ESF, ESA, EUREKA or the EU research programmes. This can be explained by describing the advantages or benefits, which should be gained from carrying out your project within the COST framework.

This part should clearly reflect the fact that a COST Action is implemented through the concerted action, what means that the research is carried out in the participating countries and financed by themselves, while COST provides the necessary co-ordination.