Outsourced Ion Channel Testing Trends 2016
|出版日||ページ情報||英文 63 Pages
This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on outsourced ion channel testing carried out in July 2016.
The survey was initiated by HTStec as part of its tracking of life science marketplaces and to update HTStec's previous outsourced ion channel testing trends report (published May 2013).
The questionnaire was compiled to meet the needs and interests of the outsourced ion channel testing provider community. Many questions were the same as those in the 2013 report.
The main objectives were to comprehensively document current use of and potential interest in outsourcing ion channel primary screening, selectivity profiling and safety liability testing. The survey also investigated access to stably transfected cell lines and future purchasing plans. The aim was to compile a reference document on outsourced ion channel testing, 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 the following aspects of outsourced ion channel testing, as practiced to date (2016) and in some cases as predicted for the future (2018): targeting of ion channels as therapeutic targets using primary screening; number of on-going programs with ion channels as a therapeutic target; preferred and alternative primary screening platform technology; current outsourcing of ion channel primary screening; why some respondents have not outsourced ion channel primary screening to date; current level of interest in outsourcing ion channel primary screening; primary screening platforms respondents would most like to access at a fee-for-service service provider; primary screening services respondents most envisage accessing and price points for those services; stage where respondents are most interested in outsourcing ion channel selectivity profiling; preferred selection of assays when deciding on ion channel selectivity profiling; ion channel panels of most interest when considering selectivity profiling; technology platforms respondents most want to access at a fee-for-service service provider for selectivity profiling; with respect to patch clamping data the preferred vendor's platform; current level of interest in outsourcing ion channel selectivity profiling; current outsourcing of ion channel selectivity profiling; what motivates selection of an ion channel selectivity profiling service provider; selectivity profiling services respondents most envisage accessing and price points for those services; aspects of ion channel safety liability testing that are outsourced; current level of interest in outsourcing safety liability testing; current outsourcing of ion channel safety liability testing; what motivates selection of an ion channel safety liability testing service provider; outsourcing budget for all ion channel testing done at fee-for-service labs and its breakdown into fee-for-service categories; type of service providers most interested in accessing for ion channel outsourcing; importance of different ion channel testing services provided; preferred fee-for-service providers of ion channel primary screening, ion channel selectivity profiling and ion channel safety liability testing; most trusted and most used ion channel services providers; respondents with access to stably transfected ion channel cell lines in house; source of cell lines used in house; plans to purchase any stably transfected cell lines over the next few years; budget allocation to purchase stably transfected cell lines; and any unmet needs in outsourced ion channel testing.
The survey questionnaire consisted of 32 mainly multi-choice questions. In addition, there were 6 questions related solely to survey demographics.
The survey collected 71 validated responses, of these 75% provided comprehensive input.
Survey responses were geographically split: 38% North America; 35% Europe; 11% Asia (excluding Japan and China); 10% Japan; 3% China and 3% Rest of World.
Survey respondents were drawn from persons or groups actively using or interested in using outsourced ion channel primary screening, selectivity profiling and safety liability testing.
Respondents came from 23 Large Pharma; 15 Biotech Company; 14 Medium-Small Pharma; 9 University; 3 Research Institute: 2 Government Lab; 2 Academic Screening Center; 2 Other; and 1 Hospital/Clinic/ Medical School.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 11 research scientists; 11 section/group leaders; 11 senior scientists/researchers; 8 directors; 7 principal investigators; 6 lab managers; 6 professors/assistant professors; 4 department heads; 4 others; 2 outsourcing managers; and 1 vice president.
Survey results were expressed as an average of all survey respondents. In addition, where appropriate the data was reanalyzed after sub-division into the following 5 survey groups: 1) Large Pharma; 2) Other Screening Labs; 3) Academic Research; 4) Europe; and 5) North America.
The majority of respondents were investigating/targeting ion channels as therapeutic targets using primary screening, with a median of <5 programs undertaken today (2016).
Where primary screening of ion channels was undertaken in house the preferred screening platform was fluorescence-based assays (e.g. FLIPR/Hamamatsu FDSS),
Only a minority of respondents have outsourced the primary screening of ion channels to date and most of this was done at Charles River. Some feedback on why some respondents have not yet outsourced ion channel primary screening was documented.
The current (2016) level of interest in outsourcing ion channel primary screening was moderate for small-scale (10-100 compounds screened) or medium-scale (100-1,000 compounds screened) primary campaigns. The median maximum price point for accessing this screening was $1-$2 per data point.
Of those respondents interested in outsourcing primary screening a median of <5 programs per year were outsourced today (2016). The preferred platform to be accessed was automated patch-clamp (APC).
Most respondents want to outsource selectivity profiling after hits-to-leads (lead optimization).
Selection by target was the preferred way of selecting assays for ion channel selectivity profiling.
A cardiac channel panel was most wanted for selectivity profiling.
The preferred platform for selectivity profiling to be accessed at service providers was APC.
The preferred vendor's platform for patch clamping data was Sophion QPatch HT.
The median use of outsourced selectivity profiling today (2016) was 100-250 data points per year.
A majority of respondents have outsourced selectivity profiling of ion channels to date and most of that was done at Charles River and Eurofins.
Data quality (e.g. GΩ versus MΩ seal data) was rated of greatest motivation in selecting an ion channel selectivity profiling provider.
The following scenarios were envisaged for outsourced selectivity profiling services; 1) assay selection by target; 2) median 6-10 channels per profile; 3) median 6-10 compounds per profile; and 4) median $2-$5 maximum price point per data point.
hERG ion channel assays were the aspect of ion channel safety liability testing respondents most want to outsource today (2016).
A median 6-10 compounds per year were outsourced for safety liability testing today (2016).
Only a minority of respondents have outsourced safety liability testing of ion channels to date and most of that was done at Charles River and Eurofins.
Cutting-edge gold standard assays was ranked what most motivates respondent's selection of an ion channel safety liability provider.
The median annual outsourcing budget allocated for all ion channel testing was $50K-$100K today (2016), with the biggest proportion of this budget spent on selectivity profiling.
A bottom-up model was developed around the respondent's outsourcing budgets to estimate the global market for outsourced ion channel testing. The total market was estimated to be around $55Millon in 2016. Details of the segmentation and breakdown into component services are given in the full report.
The majority of respondents were interested in accessing a speciality CRO for ion channel testing services.
Selectivity profiling was rated the offering an ion channel service provider must provide.
The preferred providers of ion channel primary screening were Charles River, Eurofins, Axxam and Evotec.
The preferred providers of ion channel selectivity profiling were Charles River, Eurofins and Evotec.
The preferred providers of ion channel safety liability testing were Charles River, Eurofins and ThermoFisher Scientific.
The most trusted fee-for-service provider of ion channel testing was Charles River.
The most used fee-for-service providers of ion channel testing were Eurofins and Charles River.
The majority of respondents have access to stably transfected ion channel cell lines in house.
The majority of respondents make stably transfected ion channel cell lines themselves (i.e. in house).
The median budget allocated to purchase stably transfected ion channel cell lines was $10K-$25K.
The full report provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses for each question, its segmentation, CAGR and the estimates for the future (2018). It also highlights some interesting differences between the survey groups.