Multiplex Platforms to Assess Indicators of Micronutrient Status, Inflammation and Infectious Disease

Eligibility

Who is eligible for grants?  
This initiative is open to nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, international organizations, government agencies and academic institutions. We particularly encourage applications led by women or in collaboration with women-led organizations, and applications from or in collaboration with institutions based in low- and middle-income countries. Only applicants applying through a legally recognized corporate entity are eligible. Because no single institution is likely to hold all the necessary expertise, collaboration among groups working in human metabolism, biomolecule characterization and immunology is strongly encouraged.

Upon registration, applicants must provide information about the tax status of their organization as different terms and conditions may apply. You should confirm your organization's tax status with the appropriate advisor or entity within your organization such as your grants or contracts department, finance, or office of sponsored research. The foundation may request additional information regarding your tax status. For information about tax statuses, you may check with your own advisors and review information provided on the Internal Revenue Service web site at: www.irs.gov.

Application Process

What must my application include? 
Please refer to the Application Instructions document.

Am I able to edit my proposal once submitted?  
Yes, you may edit your proposal up until the specified deadline. 

What amount of indirect cost is available?  
Details of the foundation indirect cost policy guidelines can be found here: Gates Foundation's indirect cost policy.

Can we submit more than one proposal? 
Yes. Each proposal needs a different PI and a unique email address. A PI can collaborate on multiple submissions and apply to multiple open RFPs.

Can NGOs/CBOs lead, how should partnerships be structured, and what commitment is needed at application? 
Yes, CBOs and NGOs can lead, but this challenge needs metabolism, biomolecule, and immunology expertise, so a CBO leading without a technical partner is a weak fit. Collaboration is encouraged with no maximum number of partners; at application, just summarize collaborators in the Team and Capacity section (roles, affiliations, expertise, location). Formal letters of commitment aren't required at this stage.

Can we collaborate with other Grand Challenges projects? 
We cannot match collaborators during the application process, but the Foundation may help connect collaborators once projects are awarded.

Must proposals be submitted in English? 
Yes. Proposals must be submitted in English.

Where and how do we submit, and is there a template? 
Through the Gates Foundation online portal, via the "Apply For This Opportunity" link on the challenge page. You create an account or log in, complete an applicant profile, then upload a proposal (3 pages maximum) plus a one-page budget table and narrative, using the templates provided in the portal. Full detail is in the Application Instructions.

What costs are eligible? 
Direct costs across personnel, subcontracts, subgrants, capital assets/equipment, travel, supplies, and other expenses, plus indirect costs up to 15% of the total budget (see the Gates Foundation's indirect cost policy). Prototype development, validation, reagents, software, and engineering all fit within these categories.

Can funding support local-lab capacity-strengthening, and are certain populations prioritized? 
Capacity-strengthening isn't a separate funding line but can be built into the project plan and budget, and implementation feasibility for LMIC reference labs is weighed in review. Target populations are women of reproductive age (including pregnancy and lactation), preschool-age children, and older adults, with no special priority for other groups.

Review Process

How does the review process work?  
Please refer to the Rules and Guidelines document.

Can I get a list of potential reviewers who might be assigned to my application?  
No. We do not make public the roster of reviewers.

Can I request that my application not be reviewed by a specific individual? 
No. However, we will ask reviewers to self-identify conflicts of interest and will not assign reviewers with conflicts.

Will I receive specific feedback on my application if it is not selected? 
Due to the rapid proposal and review timelines applicable to this RFP, applicants with proposals that are not selected for award may receive a notification of decline without specific feedback.

Which review criteria matter most?
Proposals are weighed on three things: how likely the method is to give results comparable with traditional reference methods, how easy it is to implement and use, and how affordable and easy it is to maintain. Reviewers also look at scientific and technical excellence and innovation, the team and its capability, collaboration across complementary expertise, and a budget and timeline that fit the complexity, risk, and potential impact of the work.

Award Information 

Are grant awards made directly to individuals?  
No. All awards are made to the organization where the individual holds their primary appointment. Institutions must agree to the terms and conditions governing each grant award prior to award activation. 

How much money will each grant provide?  
Awards depend on the alternative proposed:

• Alternative A (minimum scope): awards up to US$200,000 per project, with a grant term of up to 12 months.
• Alternative B (optimistic scope): awards up to US$800,000 per project, with a grant term of up to 24 months, evaluated per project.

Application budgets should be commensurate with the scope of work proposed. Indirect costs may be included in the budget, up to a maximum of 15% of the total budget (subject to the Gates Foundation's indirect cost policy).

Is follow-on funding available for promising results?
There is not a dedicated follow-on mechanism tied to this RFP. Any follow-on funding decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.

Scope and Technical Approach

Which biomarkers must the platform measure, and does it need to separate inflammation from deficiency?
Alternative A covers eight analytes: iron (sTfR + ferritin), vitamin A (RBP4), iodine (thyroglobulin), folate (serum methyl-THF), vitamin B12 (holo-transcobalamin), plus CRP and AGP. Alternative B adds B1, B2, and thyroid-hormone markers (RBC folate optional). Zinc, vitamin C, and vitamin D are out of scope. The platform doesn't need to algorithmically separate inflammation from deficiency. CRP and AGP are included so inflammation can be assessed alongside the nutrient markers and used to ‘correct’ acute-phase proteins.

Do we need to build entirely new technology, or can we extend the existing platform and chemistries - must it be antibody-based?
Extend the current multiplex approach (Quansys-based) rather than start from scratch. You can build on existing assay chemistries as long as you add meaningful innovation, such as new binders; pure validation or commercialization-only work won't be funded. It doesn't have to be antibody-based (aptamers and other binders are welcome), but any approach must still address the defined panel. Existing multiplex platforms such as Quansys or Luminex are the starting point to improve on. And these grants fund method development for moderately equipped LMIC labs, not field implementation, and approaches outside the defined panel (for example AI-based interpretation or generic volatile-compound sensing) are out of scope.

What are the minimum performance and cost targets?
See the performance table in the RFP. In brief: Alternative A calls for total CV under 20% (within-run under 15%), bias within 10% against certified reference materials, at least 90% concordance with validated lab immunoassays or gold-standard methods, and no more than US$20 per sample for the full panel in duplicate. Alternative B tightens these to under 10% CV (within-run under 8%), 5% bias, 95% concordance, and a stretch cost of US$10 per sample, with wider per-analyte ranges. Both use a bench-top detector priced at no more than US$30,000 (Alternative A) or US$25,000 (Alternative B) per unit.

Can a proposal target only some analytes, and must the full panel work at submission?
Yes, you can target a clearly defined subset - just name the specific analytes you're addressing. The full panel doesn't need to be functional at submission and can be extended during the award period. This also applies to genuinely new measurement approaches that weren't anticipated in the RFP: a proof-of-concept on just one or two analytes is an acceptable way to demonstrate potential before scaling to the full panel.

Is there a required Technology Readiness Level (TRL) or minimum preliminary data?
No required Technology Readiness Level and no minimum preliminary data. You need a clear hypothesis and work plan; early-stage proposals are fine, provided it's meaningful innovation rather than basic research.

What sample type and volume are required, and would an alternative matrix like urine be eligible?
Plasma or serum, ≤10 µL for Alternative A, ≤5 µL for Alternative B (Alternative B also measures whole blood and hematocrit). Tests to measure urine are not eligible.

Is this centralized reference-lab testing only, or would point-of-care or portable formats count?
Centralized, batch-based testing at a small number of national or regional reference labs for population surveillance. Point-of-care or portable lateral-flow doesn't match the intended use, and there's no preference for portable platforms.

Does the initial proposal need a dried-blood-spot (DBS) plan?
No. DBS is a separate downstream study, not part of core scope. You may optionally include DBS-readiness data, but it won't be scored. There's also no separate DBS funding track or timeline at this stage.

Can we add iron biomarkers beyond the panel, such as hepcidin?
Hepcidin isn't in the required panel; it was considered and left out of the minimum set. You can, though, propose revisiting it under Alternative B (the optimistic scope), with justification.

What reagent stability and shelf-life are required?
Minimum: 12 months at 2 to 8°C, with the bench-top device operable at 15 to 30°C. Optimistic target: 24 months refrigerated.

How should validation handle distinct populations, and will the Foundation provide specimen panels?
Concordance targets (≥90% for Alternative A, ≥95% for Alternative B) are set generically against validated lab immunoassays or gold standards; there's no separate funding for population-specific calibration, so build any such work into your own budget. The Foundation won't supply specimen panels, so plan to source or generate your own across the required ranges. Demonstrating the Alternative B target (<10% CV at 5 µL) is also left to the applicant to establish.

Would tying the assay to a specific infectious-disease program (HIV, TB, malaria) be competitive?
Unlikely. The challenge is about improving the multiplex platform for surveillance, not disease-specific epidemiology or determinant research - the assay still applies to any infection/inflammation context, but a proposal built primarily around a single disease falls outside scope. That said, the Foundation is interested in linking micronutrient and inflammation data with infectious-disease burden for policy design - for example, being cautious about iron supplementation where malaria burden is high, or understanding how micronutrient deficiency may limit vaccine efficacy.

Would you consider extending the platform to detect infectious pathogens directly (e.g., malaria)?
The current Quansys-based platform already includes a qualitative test for malaria (HRP2), but this RFP is focused on developing the micronutrient and inflammation measurement side of the platform, not pathogen detection. The Foundation is interested in future opportunities to link micronutrient platforms with infectious-pathogen testing, but that is not the scope of this challenge.

Can grantees develop their own binders, and would those fall under Global Access?
Yes, developing new or improved binders is squarely in scope. You keep the IP you develop, but grant outputs must be made widely available under the Foundation's Global Access and IP Policy, potentially including to other manufacturers.

Are there other multiplex platforms besides Quansys we could build from?
Yes. Quansys is the platform the Foundation has validated most extensively - including a recent validation by the MNBI Scientific Advisory Board against established methods such as Vitmin and Cobas analyzers - but other commercial multiplex platforms, such as Luminex, and efforts underway in India and other countries, may also be suitable starting points.

Should mass spectrometry or other traditional reference methods be used in the assay itself?
No - traditional methods like mass spectrometry, HPLC, or gas chromatography are for validating and comparing new assays, not for use in the multiplex platform itself. The goal is a faster, simpler, lower-cost immunological (or similar) assay that can be benchmarked against these reference methods.

Does the platform need to be fully quantitative, or would semi-quantitative results be acceptable?
The platform should quantify across the full physiological range of each analyte, since the mean, median, and variance of a population's biomarker distribution can be as important as prevalence based on discrete cutoffs. A purely qualitative or narrow-range semi-quantitative result would not meet the intended use.

Do we build the kit, the instrument, or both - must all markers sit in one well?
The end product is multiplex reagent kits/plates plus a bench-top detection instrument, so you can focus on the assay side, the instrument side, or both. Ideally the biomarkers are measured together, but more than one configuration is possible if that helps hit the performance, cost, and small-volume targets - so a non-single-well setup isn't ruled out, as long as it still delivers the required quality and cost, and results are read on a single platform.

Would a proposal on the general theme but not the listed analytes qualify?
No. Proposals must address the specific Alternative A or B panel. A general multiplex-screening platform that doesn't measure those analytes, or an unrelated technology, is out of scope.

How does the Foundation see these platforms being used and integrated over the next 5 to 10 years?

The aim is to help LMICs stand up their own locally owned and run nutrition surveillance systems, so they can diagnose their micronutrient situation and track how well their interventions are working. Over the next five to ten years, the goal is to promote the technologies first in countries where the Foundation already has micronutrient grants, then make them available to other countries that want to use them.

How are ethics and data governance handled for samples from vulnerable populations?
Samples are anonymized, and results aren't expected to be shared back with donors. You'll need to follow the ethical procedures for using biological samples set by your own institution and by the countries where you work.

Can official government statistics be used as supporting data?
No. This RFP is about developing generic, practical new tests for measuring micronutrient status in populations. Applying them to specific country data comes later, and it's separate from developing the methods themselves.

Intellectual Property and Confidentiality

How can applicants protect their ideas and ensure confidentiality when sharing concepts in proposals? 
When submitting materials to the Foundation please keep in mind that because we have a focus on achieving charitable outcomes, we view information that we obtain through our grantmaking as a public good. Subject to the Gates Foundation's Privacy & Cookies Notice, the Foundation may also share information you provide to us (either orally or in writing) with third parties, including external reviewers, consultants, contingent workers, key partners and co-funders. You should assume that nothing will be kept confidential and should not include any information in the proposal, budget, supplemental materials, or reports that you consider proprietary.

Who owns Intellectual Property in funded projects? 
Grantees retain ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed through foundation-funded grants. The foundation does, however, require that grant outputs be made widely available to the intended beneficiaries. You can read more here: Gates Foundation Global Access and IP Policy 

Technical Support 

I forgot my password. How do I reset my password?  
You can request to update your password within the application site. If you continue to have issues, please reach out to [email protected]. 

How will I know if my application was submitted?  
Once an application is submitted, an email confirmation will be sent. 

I'm having trouble uploading my application file. What should I do?  
If you are having issues submitting your application, we would encourage you to submit from a different browser. If the issue persists, please email the specifics of your problem to [email protected]. 

How often do you intend to update the Frequently Asked Questions, and do you plan to provide answers to all questions submitted?  
We will periodically post answers to questions as they are submitted, but do not have a specific schedule. We will provide answers on this page that are of relevance and of general interest to potential applicants. For answers to specific questions that are not covered here, please email [email protected]