Cover Image
市場調查報告書

學術研究機關係篩檢中心的推廣及非營利篩檢活動趨勢

Academic Outreach & Non-Profit Screening Trends 2014

出版商 HTStec Ltd 商品編碼 294489
出版日期 內容資訊 英文
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
價格
Back to Top
學術研究機關係篩檢中心的推廣及非營利篩檢活動趨勢 Academic Outreach & Non-Profit Screening Trends 2014
出版日期: 2014年02月01日 內容資訊: 英文
簡介

本報告提供HTStec的學術機構系篩檢中心的推廣及非營利篩檢活動相關線上的第2次全球基準調查結果彙整資料、學術研究機關系統篩檢中心現況與預測的調查分析、目前篩檢對象和今後展望、目前處理能力與今後的預測、預算的現況與展望、醫藥品企業的合作趨勢、篩檢中心的CAPEX估計、到目前為止的發展、實際成果和面臨的課題等彙整資料,為您概述為以下內容。

  • 摘要整理
  • 目錄
  • 調查方法
  • 調查對象篩檢中心
  • 調查對象篩檢中心的地理分佈
  • 篩檢中心的所屬(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心的篩檢對象(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心的所屬和篩檢對象(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢中心(摘要)施行的活動
  • 各篩檢中心施行的活動(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢中心支持的篩檢方面(摘要)
  • 各篩檢中心支持的篩檢方面(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢中心利用的化合物庫(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心的化合物庫的結構(摘要)
  • 化合物庫&篩檢套組尺寸(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心的化合物庫(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢中心焦點的適應領域/疾病(摘要)
  • 各篩檢中心焦點的適應領域/疾病(詳細內容)
  • 特定治療標的專門的篩檢中心(摘要)
  • 特定治療標的專門的篩檢中心(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢數最多的目標類別(摘要)
  • 各中心篩檢數最多的目標類別(詳細內容)
  • 調查結果的彙整(1)
  • 1年中篩檢的治療標的數(摘要)
  • 1年中篩檢的治癒總數(摘要)
  • 篩檢企劃的一般週期(摘要)
  • 最大處理能力(摘要)
  • 2013年各中心的篩檢能力(詳細內容)
  • 使用中的主要的篩檢(微孔盤)形態(摘要)
  • 以Full HTS(高通量篩檢)方式支持的分析讀數(摘要表格)
  • 在各中心以Full HTS方式支持的分析讀數(詳細內容)
  • 最常以Full HTS方式利用的分析讀數(摘要)
  • 在各中心最常以FullHTS方式使用的分析讀數(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢設備的層級(摘要)
  • 各中心的篩檢設備層級(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢營運僱傭的全職員工數
  • 有醫藥品產業經驗的全職員工數比例(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心營運僱傭的全職員工數(詳細內容)
  • 企劃、契約、收益、資金籌措(摘要)
  • 企劃、契約、收益、資金籌措(詳細內容)
  • 醫藥品企業的合作數(摘要)
  • 醫藥品企業的合作額的規模(摘要)
  • 翻譯相關的醫藥品企業的合作(摘要)
  • 醫藥品企業合作的篩檢中心(詳細內容)
  • 目前篩檢中心狀況(摘要)
  • 到目前為止公開的支出(摘要)
  • 目前篩檢中心狀況(詳細內容)
  • 調查結果的彙整(2)
  • 2014年年度CAPEX預算(摘要)
  • 今後數年預測CAPEX預算的變更(摘要)
  • 2014年CAPEX預算的明細(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心2011年的CAPEX預算(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢中心的CAPEX估計
  • 篩檢中心的CAPEX估計:明細
  • 2014年的年度試劑、消耗品預算(摘要)
  • 今後數年預測的試劑、消耗品預算的變更(摘要)
  • 2014年試劑、消耗品預算的明細(摘要)
  • 篩檢中心的2011年的試劑、消耗品預算(詳細內容)
  • 篩檢中心的試劑、消耗品市場估計
  • 篩檢中心的試劑、消耗品市場估計的明細
  • 今後最大規模的投資(摘要)
  • 各中心今後最大規模的投資(詳細內容)
  • 到目前為止的發展、實際成果(摘要)
  • 各篩檢中心到目前為止的發展、實際成果(詳細內容)
  • 面臨的主要課題(摘要)
  • 各中心面臨的主要課題(詳細內容)
  • 中心的各種等級(摘要)
  • 中心獨自的配合措施、能力、賣點(詳細內容)
  • 調查受訪者的職務作用(摘要)
  • 調查結果的彙整 (3)
目錄

Executive Summary

  • This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's 2nd global web-based benchmarking survey on academic outreach and non-profit screening centers carried out in January 2014.
  • The study was initiated by HTStec as part of its ongoing tracking of emerging life science marketplaces. The current document updates and extends HTStec's previous (June 2011) report on this subject.
  • The main objectives of this global benchmarking study were to compile a report that comprehensively documents the current status, operational capabilities, interests, assay readouts, formats, funding, budgets, success criteria and future investments of academic and non-profit screening centers.
  • The report is intended as a reference/resource document that will facilitate identifying screening centers with certain capabilities or interests, and the direct comparison (benchmarking) of the screening centers surveyed. It is anticipated that the report will be of interest to 3rd parties seeking comparative data and a concise summary of information on academic outreach and non-profit screening (e.g. Large Pharma or Disease Foundations looking for potential screening collaborators; vendors seeking to identify suitable centers; or organizations considering setting up new centers).
  • The survey looked at the following aspects of academic outreach and non-profit screening as practiced today (2014) by the screening centers surveyed: full name of the screening center, the organisation/institution to which the screening center is affiliated and its geographic location; type of organisation/institution the screening center is affiliated with; the center's focus; activities undertaken at the center; aspects of the screening process the center supports; details of the compound libraries used or available to the center; application areas or disease focus of the center; focus on certain therapeutic targets; target classes the center is most experienced in screening; screening capabilities in 2013 in terms of the number of therapeutic targets screened per year and the total number of wells (all targets) screened per year; maximum throughput for certain assay types; typical duration of a screening project; % of screens undertaken that were cell-based, biochemical or whole organism; microplate formats used for the majority of assays undertaken; most used final assay volume and maximum % DMSO; assay readouts (detection modalities) supported in full HTS (screening) mode and used routinely for secondary screening/screening confirmation; assay readouts most used in actual primary screens over the previous 12 months; specific assay types centers have real screening experience of using; % of different cell types used in cellular screens; use of assay-ready cryopreserved cells for screening; new screening tools or technologies or approaches centers have implemented in the past 3 years; how centers rate the level of sophistication of their screening facilities; number of FTEs employed in center's operations and makeup of each center's team; where center's derive their funding; how hits are taken forward to the next phase along the drug discovery value chain; details of pharma collaborations; years operation, additional years of assured funding, and publically declared $ spent to date; 2014 capex and reagents+consumables budgets, plus their breakdown into components purchased; where the center is making the biggest investments for the future; how key shareholders/stakeholders judge a centres' screening success; key difficulties faced by the center; how the center rates certain statements/goals/criteria; steps centers are taking to maintain sustainability of operations; and each centers unique activities, capabilities or selling points.
  • The main questionnaire consisted of 38 multi-choice questions and 3 open-ended questions.
  • All of the persons that completed the survey held a senior job role or position at their screening center, which was in descending order: 23 directors; 11 managers; 9 heads and 8 with other senior job roles.
  • All survey results were expressed as an average of all screening centers on the 'summary' pages. In addition, all the individual responses from each screening center to every question are presented in the 'detail' pages.
  • 55 screening centers participated in the survey. Of these 93% (51 out of 55) provided comprehensive input.
  • Screening centers were geographically split: 60% North America; 34% Europe; 4% Rest of World; and 2% Asia (excluding Japan). The majority (56%) of screening centers surveyed came from the USA.
  • The majority of screening centers were affiliated to a university/academic core facility.
  • The screening focus of the majority of centers surveyed was a combination of both drug and probe discovery depending on need or funding.
  • The main activity undertaken by the screening centers was internal drug discovery or probe screening with data confidential to organization/institute.
  • The aspects of the screening process most supported by screening centers were assay development and low to medium throughput screening.
  • The compound libraries that screening centers most use were third party libraries (e.g. commercial vendor libraries).
  • Screening centers compound libraries were made up primarily of small molecules.
  • The approximate current size of the library held by screening centers was a median of 100-300K compounds.
  • The typical size of the screening set used by screening centers was a median of 50-100K compounds per screen.
  • The majority of screening centers had no main application area or disease focus. The application area/disease most investigated by screening centers was cancer/oncology.
  • Only 6% of screening centers specialize and focus on a specific therapeutic target.
  • The target classes that screening centers have had most experience of screening over the past 3 years were kinases, phenotypic (cell-based target-agnostic) and protein-protein interactions.
  • The number of therapeutic targets screened per year by screening centers in 2013 was a median of 6-10 targets.
  • The total number of wells screened per year by screening centers in 2013 was a median of 100K-1M wells.
  • Screening centers maximum throughput capabilities (median number of wells processed per week) were as follows: 50K-100K wells/week for enzyme/biochemical assays; 5-50K wells/week for cell-based assays, HCS assays, label-free assays and phenotypic screens; and <5K wells/week for mass spec/NMR assays.
  • The typical duration of a screening project undertaken by screening centers (i.e. including any assay development, confirmation of hit or probe activity, and follow-up assays) was a median of 7-9 months.
  • The makeup of screen types run at screening centers today was 59% cell-based, 35% biochemical and 6% whole organism.
  • The microplate format most used in screening centers operations was 384-well (standard volume).
  • The median final assay volume most used in screening center operations was in the range 25μL-50μL.
  • The median maximum % DMSO most used in screening center operations was 1% DMSO.
  • At screening centers the assay readouts (detection modalities): 1) most available to use in full HTS (screening) mode was fluorescence intensity; 2) most routinely used for secondary screening/screening confirmation was high content - cell imaging; and 3) most used in actual primary screening in the past 12 months was fluorescence intensity.
  • The specific assay types screening centers have greatest real screening experience of using was cell death/viability/proliferation.
  • The most used cell type in screening centers' HTS cellular primary screens were: tumor cell lines and transformed or recombinant cell lines.
  • Most screening centers are not yet using assay-ready cryopreserved cells for screening.
  • Screening centers specific implementation of new screening tools or technologies or approaches over the past 3 years was documented.
  • Screening centers level of sophistication (i.e. its implementation of state-of-the-art instrumentation, screening technologies and approaches) was rated most highly with respect to automated liquid handling.
  • The number of FTEs employed in screening center operations was a median of 6-10 FTE per screening center.
  • The breakdown of the FTE team was >50% directly involved in screening and assay development at most centers.
  • The main source of screening center funding was internal funds.
  • When taking hits from primary screening forward most were explored further by the academic target provider.
  • Screening centers had entered into a median of 2 pharma collaborations, although 25% had not entered into any.
  • The median total value of the pharma collaborations with screening centers was $100K-$250K.
  • The majority (75%) of all screening center pharma collaborations were translational (i.e. provided access to clinical resources or drug development etc.).
  • The current status of the screening centers surveyed were medians of 8 years operation and 2 additional years of assured funding.
  • The publicly declared spending by screening centers to date was a median of $2.5M-$5M.
  • Screening centers 2014 annual capex budget allocation for screening instrumentation and robotics was a median of $50K-$100K. The biggest proportion of this budget will be spent on detection instrumentation.
  • The 2014 global market estimate for capex spending at screening centers was around $46M per year.
  • Screening centers 2014 annual budget allocation for reagents+consumables was a median of $100K-$250K. The biggest proportion of this budget was spent on plastic consumables and off-the-shelf commercial assay kits.
  • The 2014 global market estimate for reagents+consumables spending at screening centers was around $29M per year.
  • Screening centers ranked new assay technology or approaches as their greatest investment for the future.
  • Screening centers key shareholders/stakeholders judged most important in terms of their centres' screening success the number of publications accepted in peer-reviewed journals. This was followed by projects that lead to additional 3rd party funding; revenues derived from fee-for-service; and number of targets screened.
  • Screening centers rated getting and maintaining funding as the key difficulty they faced.
  • Screenings centers were asked to rate themselves against certain statements, goals or criteria. Of these statements providing value added support both before and after the actual screen was rated highest.
  • The steps screening centers are taking to maintain sustainability of operations through its peaks and troughs were documented.
  • Screening centers provided a single sentence that concisely summarised any unique activities, capabilities or selling points.
  • The full report consists of 59 figures and 80 tables.
  • The full report records all the data submitted, including the cumulative breakdown of the responses for each question, the mean and median values, the individual responses of each screening center for every question, the market estimates for the future (2016) and the % CAGR.

Table of Contents

  • Executive Summary
  • Table of Contents
  • Survey Methodology
  • Screening Centers Surveyed in This Report (Detail 1)
  • Screening Centers Surveyed in This Report (Detail 2)
  • Geographic Origin of Screening Centers Surveyed (Summary)
  • Screening Center Affiliation (Summary)
  • Screening Focus of Centers (Summary)
  • Screening Centers Affiliation & Screening Focus (Detail)
  • Activities Undertaken at Screening Centers (Summary)
  • Activities Undertaken at Each Screening Center (Detail)
  • Aspects of Screening Supported By Screening Centers (Summary)
  • Aspects of Screening Supported By Each Screening Center (Detail)
  • Compound Libraries Screening Centers Use (Summary)
  • Makeup of Screening Center's Compound Libraries (Summary)
  • Compound Library & Screening Set Size (Summary)
  • Screening Center's Compound Libraries (Detail)
  • Application Area/Disease Focus of Screening Centers (Summary)
  • Application Area/Disease Focus of Each Screening Center (Detail)
  • Screening Centers Specializing in Specific Therapeutic Targets (Summary)
  • Screening Centers Specializing in Specific Therapeutic Targets (Detail)
  • Target Classes Centers Have Experience Of Screening (Summary)
  • Target Classes Center Have Experience Of Screening (Detail)
  • No. Of Therapeutic Targets Screened Per Year (Summary)
  • Total No. Of Wells Screened Per Year (Summary)
  • Maximum Throughput Capabilities (Summary)
  • Typical Duration Of A Screening Project (Summary)
  • 2013 Screening Capabilities Of Each Center (Detail)
  • Summary Of Survey Findings (1)
  • Proportion Of Screens Utilizing Different Approaches (Summary)
  • Main Screening (Microplate) Formats Used (Summary)
  • Most Used Final Assay Volume Range (Summary)
  • Maximum % DMSO Used In Assays (Summary)
  • Screening Approach Used At Centers (Detail)
  • Assay Readouts Available To Use In Full HTS Mode (Summary)
  • Assay Readouts Available In Full HTS Mode By Each Center (Detail)
  • Assay Readouts Most For Secondary Screening (Summary)
  • Assay Readouts Most For Secondary Screening (Detail)
  • Assay Readouts Most Used In Full HTS Mode (Summary)
  • Assay Readouts Most Used In Full HTS Mode By Each Center (Detail)
  • Specific Assay Types Center Has Experience Of Using (Summary)
  • Specific Assay Types Center Has Experience Of Using (Detail)
  • Proportion Of Different Cell Types Used In Cellular Screens (Summary)
  • Use of Assay-Ready Cryopreserved Cells In Screening (Summary)
  • Use Of Cells In Screening (Detail)
  • New Screening Tools Or Technologies Or Approaches Centers Have Implemented In Past 3 Years (Detail)
  • Screening Facilities Level of Sophistication (Summary)
  • Screening Facilities Level of Sophistication at Each Center (Detail)
  • Number of FTE Employed In Screening Center Operations (Summary)
  • Makeup Of Screening Centers FTE Team/Employees (Summary)
  • FTEs Employed In Screening Center Operations (Detail)
  • Source Of Projects, Contracts, Revenues Or Funding (Summary)
  • Source of Projects, Contracts, Revenues Or Funding (Detail)
  • How Hits Are Taken Forward By Screening Centers (Summary)
  • How Hits Are Taken Forward By Screening Centers (Detail)
  • Number of Pharma Collaborations Entered Into (Summary)
  • Total Value Of Pharma Collaborations (Summary)
  • Pharma Collaborations That Are Translational (Summary)
  • Screening Centers With Pharma Collaborations (Detail)
  • Summary Of Survey Findings (2)
  • Current Screening Center Status (Summary)
  • Publicly Declared Spending To Date (Summary)
  • Current Screening Center Status (Detail)
  • 2014 Annual Capex Budget (Summary)
  • Expected Capex Budget Change Over Next Few Years (Summary)
  • Breakdown Of 2014 Capex Budget (Summary)
  • Screening Centers 2014 Capex Budget (Detail)
  • Screening Centers Capex Market Estimate
  • Breakdown Of Screening Centers Capex Market Estimate
  • 2014 Annual Reagents & Consumable Budget (Summary)
  • Expected Reagents & Consumables Budget Change Over Next Few Years (Summary)
  • Breakdown of 2014 Reagents & Consumable Budget (Summary)
  • Screening Centers 2014 Reagents & Consumables Budget (Detail)
  • Screening Centers Reagents & Consumables Market Estimate
  • Breakdown of Screening Centers Reagents/Consumables Market Estimate
  • Biggest $ Investment For The Future (Summary)
  • Biggest $ Investment For The Future At Each Center (Detail)
  • How Shareholders Judge A Screening Center's Success (Summary)
  • How Shareholders Judge A Screening Center's Success (Detail)
  • Key Difficulties Faced (Summary)
  • Key Difficulties Faced At Each Center (Detail)
  • How Centers Rate Certain Statements, Goals Or Criteria (Summary)
  • How Centers Rate Certain Statements, Goals Or Criteria (Detail)
  • Steps Individual Centers Are Taking To Maintain Sustainability (Detail)
  • Centers Unique Activities, Capabilities & Selling Points (Detail)
  • Job Role Or Position Of Persons Completing The Survey (Summary)
  • Summary Of Survey Findings (3)
Back to Top