Kinase Profiling Trends 2016
公司內部激酶分析試劑/套件市場推算將在2016年達到約3,300萬美元。FFS (fee-for-service) 供應商的外包激酶分析市場規模，預測在2016年將達到約5,000萬美元。
This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on kinase profiling carried out in May 2016.
The survey was initiated by HTStec as part of its tracking of life science marketplaces and to update HTStec's previous kinase profiling trends report (published May 2013).
The questionnaire was compiled by HTStec to meet the needs, specific requirements and interests of the kinase vendor community.
The objective was to comprehensively document current practices and preferences in kinase profiling, and to understand future user requirements, particularly with respect to the cost and use of outsourced services. The aim was to compile a reference document on kinase profiling metrics, which could be compared directly relative to HTStec's previous 2013 report. Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from Pharma, Biotech and Academic Research market segments globally.
The survey looked at in house and outsourced kinase profiling, as practiced today (2016) and in some cases as predicted for the future (2018). Specifically the following were investigated: therapeutic areas investigating kinase assays; proportion of kinase profiling activity outsourced; preferred kinase panel profiling assay format, reagent/kit supplier and outsourced fee-for-service providers; interest in binding assays; awareness of providers of outsourced kinase profiling services; most used/most likely to use outsourced fee-for-service providers; key reasons for using a service provider; most important decision-making criteria when selecting an outsourced provider; outsourcing providers most associated with desired attributes; kinase panel profiling budgets; supplier market share for in house and outsourced profiling; number of profiling wells generated in house and outsourced; average cost per single well of the kinase profiling assays and typical use of kinase profiling; data breakdown between single vs. replicate testing and dose response curves; typical size of the kinase panels used; preferred size of an outsourced profiling panel; representation of disease-relevant mutant kinases in an outsourced panel; types of mode of action studies undertaken; when a broad kinome profile is chosen; interest in a panel of cell-based kinases; features of an ideal kinase platform of greatest interest to respondents; where kinase service providers should prioritize going forward; key areas where service providers need to improve; any unmet needs in kinase panel profiling and related services today; and interest to learn more about outsourced kinase profiling from selected vendors.
The main questionnaire consisted of 30 mainly simple multi-choice questions, focused mostly on assay and budget metrics. In addition, there were 7 questions related solely to survey demographics.
The survey collected 128 validated responses, of these 73% provided comprehensive input.
Responses were geographically split: 59% North America; 19% Europe; 13% Asia (excluding Japan); 6% China; 2% ROW (Rest of World); and 1% Japan.
Survey respondents were drawn from persons or groups involved in house kinase profiling and using outsourced kinase profiling at fee-for-service providers.
Respondents came from 31 Biotech Company; 25 University; 18 Medium-Small Pharma; 12 Others; 11 Large Pharma; 10 Hospital/Clinic/Medical School; 9 Not-For-Profit Research Center; 8 Government Lab; and 4 Academic Screening Center.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 22 research scientists; 18 senior scientists/researchers; 15 directors; 13 section/group leaders; 13 principal investigators; 10 graduate/PhD students; 7 post-docs; 7 professors/assistant professors; 7 department heads; 6 others; 5 lab managers; and 5 vice presidents.
The research discipline of most survey respondents was chemistry/medicinal chemistry.
Respondents represented: 48 labs with a combination of drug discovery areas; 18 basic research; 11 hits-to-leads (lead optimization); 11 therapeutic areas (target ID/validation); 11 applied research; 7 leads-to-candidate (ADME tox/preclinical research); 5 external research coordination; 5 assay development; 5 compound profiling; 4 primary screening (HTS); 2 others; and 1 secondary screening.
Survey results were expressed as an average of all survey respondents. In addition, the data was fully reanalyzed after sub-division into the following 5 survey groups: 1) Pharma; 2) Biotech; 3) Academic Research; 4) Europe; and 5) North America.
85% of respondents were undertaking kinase profiling assays in house or outsourced at a provider.
The majority of kinase profiling was undertaken within the oncology therapeutic area.
A median of 81%-99% of all kinase profiling activities were outsourced today (2016).
The preferred in house kinase panel profiling assay format was activity assays and ThermoFisher Scientific was the preferred kinase panel profiling reagent/kit supplier.
The preferred outsourced kinase panel profiling assay format was activity assays, and Reaction Biology was the preferred fee-for-service supplier.
The majority thought that activity assays were preferable to binding assays, and the reasons given for preferring activity assays were documented.
Awareness of outsourced providers of kinase profiling services was greatest for Reaction Biology, ThermoFisher Scientific, DiscoverRx and PerkinElmer.
Reaction Biology was the most used fee-for-service provider over the past year.
Key reasons for having used or using current service providers of kinase profiling were detailed.
High-quality reproducible data was ranked the key decision-making criteria when selecting an outsourced kinase profiling provider.
The kinase profiling provider most associated with a list of desirable attributes was Reaction Biology.
The median budget allocation for in house kinase panel profiling was <$10K/lab in 2016 and ThermoFisher Scientific had greatest share of this budget.
The median budget allocation for outsourced kinase panel profiling was $10K-$25K/lab in 2016 and Reaction Biology had greatest share of this budget.
The median total number of single wells tested for kinase panel profiling was <1K wells/year in house versus 1K-5K wells/year outsourced in 2016.
The median cost per single well for kinase panel profiling undertaken was $1-$2.5 in house versus $2.5-$5 outsourced in 2016.
Most outsourced kinase profiling wells were duplicate or replicate point (% inhibition) tests (n>1).
The median sizes of kinase panels used in house for SAR in lead optimization and SAR in the final decision stage were both <50 kinases in 2016.
The median sizes of kinase panels outsourced for SAR in lead optimization and SAR in the final decision stage were both 100-150 kinases in 2016.
The median preferred size of a kinase panel offered by an outsourced provider was 200-300 kinases.
A median of 1-50 disease-relevant mutant kinases should be present in an outsourced panel.
ATP competition was the type of investigation most undertaken during in house MOA studies.
The majority would choose to do a broad kinome profile during lead optimization.
Most thought that an outsourced panel of individual cell-based kinase assays maybe useful.
High-quality, reproducible data was ranked as the feature of an ideal kinase screening platform of greatest interest to respondents.
Cell-based assays based on endogenous kinase expression were ranked as the area where kinase service providers should prioritize their efforts going forward.
Respondent's feedback on the 2 key areas where current kinase profiling service providers need to improve and any unmet needs in kinase panel profiling and related services today were documented.
57% of respondents were interested to learn more about outsourced kinase profiling from selected vendors.
Several bottom-up models were developed to estimate the in house and outsourced kinase profiling markets using the budgets respondents have allocated or estimated in this survey. The in house kinase profiling reagent/kit market was estimated to be around $33Million in 2016. The outsourced kinase profiling market at fee-for-service providers was estimated to be around $50Million in 2016. The markets were segmented by organisation and geography. CAGR estimates were made for the market segments.
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 some interesting differences, particularly between Pharma, Biotech and Academic Research survey groupings.