高內涵篩選 (HCS) 動向 2015年
High Content Screening Trends 2015
|出版日期||內容資訊||英文 54 Pages
本報告針對高內涵篩選 (HCS) 系統相關線上標竿調查結果進行分析。
This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on high content screening (HCS) systems carried out in January 2016.
The study was initiated by HTStec as part of its ongoing tracking of emerging life science marketplaces.
The questionnaire was compiled to meet the needs and interests of the HCS instruments vendor community.
The main objectives of this global benchmarking study were to comprehensively document current end user opinions, practices and preferences in the use of HCS instruments and software, and to understand future HCS workflow requirements.
The survey looked at the following aspects of HCS systems as practiced today (2016) and in some cases as predicted for the future (2018): current use of HCS assays; major research areas of HCS assays; number of different HCS assays undertaken per year and average number of wells processed per assay; typical throughput per 24h with current HCS instrument approach; usage of different cell types in HCS assays; number of different dyes/stains multiplexed in the same HCS assay and how many different parameters are evaluated; the main cell labelling technique/source used in HCS assays; extent to which 3D cell cultures are used in HCS assays and analysis; extent to which HCS assays and analysis are used to monitor phenotypic-based screens (versus target-based screens); how often does the lab use an HCS instrument; types of imaging used for HCS assays; extent to which HCS tasks require confocal imaging; vendor's high content imaging instruments respondents have access to in their labs; most important features when purchasing an HCS system; extent to which whole-well imaging technology offered on some multi-mode plate readers features in respondent's HCS assay workflow; probability of purchasing a new HCS system in the near future; HCS systems respondents are most interested in purchasing in the near future; most important features of HCS software; type of image analysis software most preferred; most important components of HCS software; number of scientists that need access to HCS software; preferred HCS software hosting solution; software currently used in respondent's lab as part of their HCS workflow; type of microplates mainly used for HCS assay applications; approximate monthly usage of microplates for HCS; main vendors of microplates used in HCS assays; approximate 2016 annual budget for HCS workflow (i.e. instruments, informatics, assays, reagents and consumables) and expected budget change in 2018; how the HCS workflow budget is broken down into components; estimated cost per microplate well analysed using HCS assays; new developments most likely to grow the market for HCS assays; and any unmet needs that limit work on HCS today.
The main questionnaire consisted of 30 multi-choice questions and 1 open-ended question. In addition, there were 6 questions related solely to survey demographics.
The survey collected 54 validated responses, of these 87% provided comprehensive input.
Survey responses were geographically split: 55% Europe; 37% North America; 4% Asia (excluding Japan); 2% Rest of World and 2% Japan.
Survey respondents were drawn from persons or groups undertaking HCS, who made or influenced purchasing decisions for HCS-related products in their lab or group.
Respondents came from 17 Large Pharma; 14 University/Research Institute/Government Lab/Not-For-Profit; 12 Academic Screening Centers; 5 Medium-Small Pharma; 4 Biotech; and 2 Contract Research Organizations.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 13 section/ group leaders; 9 research scientists; 7 principal investigators, 6 senior scientists/researchers; 6 directors; 4 lab managers; 4 professors/assistant professors; 3 department heads; 1 post-docs; and 1 other.
Survey results were expressed as an average of all survey respondents. In addition, where appropriate the data was fully reanalyzed after sub-division into the following 5 survey groups: 1) Pharma; 2) Other Screening Labs; 3) Academic Research; 4) Europe; and 5) North America.
The main application of HCS was small molecule drug discovery.
The main research area making use of HCS assays was oncology.
A median of 4-5 different HCS assays per year were reported.
The median number of wells analyzed per HCS assay was 5K-10K.
The median throughput with current HCS instrument approach was 5K-10K wells processed per 24h.
The cell type most used today for HCS assays was tumor cell lines.
A median of 3 dyes (stains) were multiplexed per HCS assay.
A median of 6-10 different parameters were evaluated per HCS assay.
Fluorescent dyes were rated as the main labelling technique/source used in HCS assays.
The median use of 3D cell cultures in HCS assays and analysis today (2016) was minimal (<25% assays).
The median use of HCS assays and analysis to monitor phenotypic-based screens (versus target-based screens) today (2016) was moderate (25-75% assays).
Most respondents use HCS instruments frequently (i.e. system is used at least once per week).
The type of imaging most used for HCS assays was widefield imaging.
3D cell culture was rated the HCS task that most requires confocal imaging.
The vendor's high content imaging instruments that respondents have greatest access to and make most use of today were from PerkinElmer.
PerkinElmer had greatest share of high content imaging instrument placements today and was closely followed by Molecular Devices and Thermo Scientific.
Sensitivity/resolution was ranked the most important feature when purchasing an HCS system.
The majority stated that whole-well imaging technology as offered on several multi-mode plate readers did not feature in their HCS assays or workflow. The remainder think whole-well imaging has a role in their HCS assays or workflow and gave feedback on where it best fits.
The median probability of purchasing a new HCS system in the near future was moderate (25-75%).
The HCS systems of greatest interest for purchasing in the near future were the PerkinElmer Opera Phenix and Molecular Devices ImageXpress Micro Confocal.
PerkinElmer, Molecular Devices and Thermo Scientific are expected to have the greatest share of future HCS instrument purchases.
Performance was ranked the most important features of HCS software.
Ready-made was the type of image analysis software most favoured for HCS assays.
Image analysis was ranked the most important component of HCS software.
A median of 6-10 scientists per institute or organisation need access to HCS software.
The majority prefer an HCS software solution to be hosted on their premises versus in the cloud.
The software most used by respondents in their lab as part of their HCS work flow was Excel and Spotfire.
The types of microplates most used for HCS applications were: plate density - 384-wells; plate bottom type - plastic-film; HCS engineered - no (i.e. regular plate); plate surface - tissue cultured treated.
The median monthly usage of 384-well microplates for HCS was 10-50 plates.
The main suppliers of microplates used for HCS assays were Greiner Bio-One and Corning.
The median budget allocated for HCS workflow and related products (this budget includes instruments, informatics, assays, reagents and consumables) was $50K-$100K today (2016). The biggest proportion of this budget was allocated to accessory reagents (i.e. toolbox components, stains, Abs, fixatives, buffers etc.).
A bottom-up model was developed around the respondent's HCS workflow and related products budgets to estimate the global market. The total market was estimated to be greater than $250M today (2016). Segmentation, component breakdown and CAGR estimates are given in the full report.
The median cost per microplate well analysed by HCS of $0.25-$0.50 today (2016).
Phenotypic assays and 3D spheroids/cell cultures were equally ranked as the areas where new developments are likely to impact and grow the market (increase use and adoption) for HCS assays.
Respondent feedback on any unmet needs that limit work on HCS today was documented.
The full report provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses for each question, its segmentation and the estimates for the future (2018). It also highlights a few interesting differences between the survey groups.
PLEASE NOTE: In the survey we have used the term HCS to encompass both High Content Screening and also what is synonymously referred to as High Content Analysis (HCA).