UF College of medicine
With the opening of the 2025-26 R01 Boot Camp application, two alumni share their experiences.
By Manny Rea
Finishing its third year and beginning its fourth, the annual College of Medicine Office of Research R01 Boot Camp is a team science mentorship-focused program helping faculty receive R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Submitting an R01 grant proposal is a lengthy process usually requiring several attempts to receive this highly sought award. The boot camp helps participants refine their grant-writing skills, positioning them to enter this prestigious NIH funding tier.
With applications for the 2025-2026 boot camp cycle now open, boot camp alumni, Katelyn Bruno, Ph.D., and Laura Jacobsen, M.D., discuss their thoughts about the program:
Tell us about your time at UF and your research interest:
I’m a relatively new investigator. I’ve been at UF for two and a half years and had only been here a year when I started the R01 Boot Camp. Most of my research focuses on a condition called viral myocarditis, which can progress to dilated cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and the need for heart transplant in some patients. There are sex and age differences in the disease, and it is most common in children and young adults. My research tries to understand the mechanisms of disease so we can discover new ways to predict, diagnose, and treat it as well as to prevent chronic issues and sudden cardiac deaths.
Prior to the boot camp, what was the extent of your research grant writing experience?
I had one R21, and I’d written some small pilot internal grants at Mayo Clinic, but I was self-taught and had emulated the grantsmanship of my mentor.
The boot camp taught me best practices for grant writing, enabling me to use those rather than to perpetuate bad habits.
What proposals did you work on while in the boot camp?
I worked on an R01 that I submitted, but I also worked on resubmissions of two R21s that both ended up getting funded. The first was funded in July by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and explores sex and age differences in myocarditis. The second was funded this April and is a project exploring Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic.
What aspects of the boot camp contributed to your funding success?
Without a doubt, it was what I learned about grantsmanship. I still go back and reference the Grant Writing Seminar book to help with my drafting, such as how to break down the specific aims page. When working on grants, it’s always sitting next to me so I can flip through it.
The mock study section was also helpful in terms of getting feedback from someone who didn’t know anything about my work. With deadline structures for both internal and external experts, instead of waiting until last minute, the boot camp pushed me to be more proactive in my writing. I learned the importance of finishing my work early so I could get thorough feedback. The science didn’t change, but those parts of the grant were much stronger because of the critiques I received.
There was also a sense of camaraderie within the group, and I still stay connected with some of the people I met.
Were you expecting the camaraderie aspect of the boot camp?
No, I think it developed with time. We knew we’d be assigned to small groups, but we didn’t anticipate how much we’d bond over our struggles. While there was value in the didactic learning from the classes, the small groups really helped because they created an environment where we could talk openly about our challenges. We used those groups to connect, ask questions, and support each other. It was nice to have people going through the same things as me, especially since I’m the only Ph.D. in my clinical division.
What advice would you give to investigators who may be interested in the boot camp?
You’re going to get out what you put in. The biggest thing I got out of it was doing the mock study section. I got three reviewers who gave comments that ripped my grant apart. But if I hadn’t gone through that process, that would have been my first review from the NIH. The boot camp gave me an extra review and an extra chance for my grants. I had drastic leaps in the quality of my science and grantsmanship. I one hundred percent believe the grants I submitted were a million times better than if I hadn’t been in the boot camp.
Tell us about your time at UF and your research interest:
I completed undergrad and medical school here and did my pediatrics training in North Carolina. I then came back to UF for my pediatric endocrine fellowship, and I’ve been a faculty member the last six years in the Department of Pediatrics and the Division of Pediatric Endocrinology. I care for kids with diabetes and endocrine disorders, and my research focuses on type 1 diabetes. I study its causes and how to intervene in the process of beta cell loss, which are the cells that make insulin in the body. I look to identify who is most likely to respond to disease-modifying therapies by looking at immune signatures in the blood.
Prior to the boot camp, what was the extent of your research grant writing experience?
I have written several grants such as a K08, an F31, and an R01 supplement. I just hadn’t done the big R01 yet.
What were the skills you were looking to improve going into the boot camp?
I was looking to improve the skills that would help me in making the jump from these other grants to an R01. I was going from writing training grants to an independent grant. I wanted to learn how I can prove that I have research independence and what that would look like on paper. I also wanted to know how detailed the proposal should be and what reviewers would be looking for in such a grant, because it’s really the first one that I’ve championed without a direct mentor overseeing it.
What proposals did you work on while in the boot camp?
I worked on an R01 and submitted it in June. It was approved and includes a randomized controlled trial for validating an immune response signature to anti-thymocyte globulin in people with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes.
What aspects of the boot camp contributed to your funding success?
The most helpful part for me was the early timeline. Starting nine months before the deadline forced me to meet intermediate deadlines, like getting the specific aims page done and having a chalk talk. Without that structure, I probably would’ve put off writing parts of the R01, so it really helped me stay on track. It was also great to get feedback on things like the specific aims from people who probably wouldn’t have had read it otherwise, like the small group leaders in the boot camp. These were people outside my field, and getting feedback from non-subject matter experts was really valuable. They’d say things like, “This doesn’t make sense,” or “I don’t understand,” which was helpful because I’m so used to seeing my research every day and it’s easy to miss things.
Also, in our small group, we read each other’s work and provided feedback, which gave me a unique perspective. The small group sessions with our leaders were great because we could ask questions and go over big-picture goals. That aspect was really helpful.
What advice would you give to investigators who may be interested in the boot camp?
A lot of people don’t get their first R01 and that’s OK. No matter how many times you’ve been up to bat, it can be hit or miss with the study sections. This camp provides the validation and support to keep on going up to bat and submit.
Applications for the 2025-26 R01 boot camp are open and due by Monday, May 26th. The boot camp offers two tracks: one for early-stage investigators, the other for mid-career or senior investigators. Faculty working as PI or MPI on new R01s, resubmissions, or renewals who will submit by the June deadline are encouraged to apply. The Office of Research looks forward to working with our next cohort!