Epigenetic Proteins & Reagents Trends 2015
|出版日||ページ情報||英文 50 Pages
|エピジェネティックプロテインおよび試薬動向：2015年 Epigenetic Proteins & Reagents Trends 2015|
|出版日: 2015年04月01日||ページ情報: 英文 50 Pages||
This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on epigenetic proteins and reagents carried out in March 2015.
The survey was initiated by HTStec as part of our tracking of emerging life science marketplaces. The objective was to understand the current and future potential of epigenetic target research. The questionnaire was compiled to meet the needs, requirements and interests of the epigenetic proteins and reagents vendor community.
Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from Pharma, Biotech and Academic Research market segments in both North America and Europe.
The survey looked at the following aspects of epigenetic proteins and reagents, as practiced today (2015) and in some cases as predicted for the future (2017): respondent's role in relation to epigenetic research decision making; aims of current or planned research using epigenetic proteins and reagents; research categories where use of epigenetic proteins and reagents best fit; category of epigenetic proteins of most interest; nucleic acid-based modes of epigenetic regulation of most interest; how many different epigenetic proteins are under investigation; key diseases/therapeutic areas targeting epigenetic modification research; preference to use commercial assay kits or to develop own assays using available proteins and reagents; main source/origin of epigenetic proteins and reagents used; commercial suppliers of the majority of the proteins or assays kits and reagents purchased; preferred formats/detection technologies for biochemical and cellular assays kits and why chosen formats are preferred; budget for proteins, assay kits and reagents used for in house epigenetic modification research and screening; breakdown of budget into components; opinion on the current status of epigenetic targets; time frame for epigenetic targets to become a new category for successful drug research; information that has/or will most influence a decision to initiate large-scale research using epigenetic proteins; level of priority given to epigenetic modification research; number of FTE working on epigenetic modification research; biggest obstacles to epigenetic targets gaining industry-wide acceptance as drug targets; events that will trigger a major increase in investment and future growth in the epigenetic protein and reagents market; expected growth of epigenetic modification research within the next 3 to 5 years; if current research is limited by the lack of availability of specific epigenetic proteins or assays kits; and any unmet needs in epigenetic proteins and reagents research today.
The main questionnaire consisted of 25 multi-choice questions and 2 open-ended questions. In addition, there were 7 questions related solely to survey demographics.
The survey collected 316 validated responses, of these 72% provided comprehensive input.
Survey responses were geographically split: 58% North America; 23% Europe; 12% Asia (excluding Japan); 5% China; and 2% Rest of World.
Survey respondents were drawn from persons or groups using or planning to investigate epigenetic proteins and reagents (e.g. assay kits) in their research.
Respondents represented 187 University/Research Institute/Government Lab/Not-for-Profit Facilities; 42 Biotechs; 21 Large Pharma; 20 Medium-Small Pharma; 13 Academic Screening Center; 11 Contract Research Organization; 9 Other; 8 Biopharma; and 5 Virtual Biotechs.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 69 research scientists/associates; 39 others; 36 post-docs; 34 senior scientists/researchers; 33 principal investigators; 33 professors/assistant professors; 27 directors; 19 lab managers; 11 department heads; 9 section/group leaders; and 6 vice presidents.
Respondents represented the followings lab types: 123 basic research; 73 a combination of drug discovery areas; 44 therapeutic areas (target ID/validation); 20 assay development; 18 others; 14 hits-to-leads (lead optimization); 10 primary screening (HTS); 8 leads-to-candidate (ADME tox/preclinical research); 5 compound profiling; and 1 secondary screening.
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) Pharma; 2) Biotech; 3) Academic Research; 4) Decision-Maker; and 5) Researcher Only.
The majority of respondents were using epigenetic proteins and reagents today.
The aims of respondent's current or planned research on epigenetic proteins and reagents were documented.
The majority of respondents participate in strategic decisions about when/if research is initiated, what proteins and disease areas are targeted and set the budget.
The research category in which the majority of respondents use of epigenetic proteins and reagents best fits was basic/academic research/target biology.
The single category of epigenetic proteins of most interest to respondents was methyltransferases.
The nucleic acid based modes of epigenetic regulation of most interest to respondents was DNA methylation/hydroxymethylation.
The median number of different epigenetic proteins under investigation today (2015) was 2-3 proteins/lab.
The majority were targeting, using or planning to use epigenetic modification research within the oncology therapeutic area.
The reagent preference of the majority for epigenetic modification research or internal drug discovery was use commercial assay kits.
The main sources/origins of epigenetic proteins used today were commercial sources.
The commercial sources of the majority of proteins, assay kits and reagents used to assay epigenetic modification in house were Abcam, Sigma Aldrich and Thermo Scientific.
The preferred biochemical assay format for internal work using commercial assay kits for epigenetic modification assays was ELISA.
The preferred cellular assay format for internal work using commercial assay kits for epigenetic modification assays was flow cytometry.
The reasons why respondents prefer particular biochemical or cellular epigenetic assay kit formats were documented.
The median annual protein, assay kit and reagent budget allocation for in house epigenetic modification research and screening was $5K-$25K/lab in 2015.
A bottom-up model developed around respondent's annual budget for epigenetic modification proteins, assay kits and reagents estimated the global market to be around $70M in 2015. The greatest share of this market was allocated to assay specific probes and biochemical assay kits.
The professional opinion of the majority of respondents on the status of epigenetic targets was it may be a major new category for successful new drug research, but a lot more work is needed.
The median time frame when epigenetic targets are expected to be a new category for successful drug research was 3-5 years.
In-house research results was ranked the information that has/or will most influence the decision to initiate large scale research using epigenetic proteins.
The level of priority most given by respondent's company or organization to epigenetic modification research was medium.
A median of 3-5 FTEs/lab were working on in house epigenetic modification research today (2015).
Biology not adequately understood was ranked as the biggest obstacle (limitation) to epigenetic targets gaining industry-wide acceptance.
Better validation of epigenetic targets in disease causation was ranked as the trigger (impact) that would cause a major increase in investment and future growth of epigenetics proteins and reagents market.
The majority do not think that their current research is limited by lack of availability of specific epigenetic proteins or assay kits.
Feedback on the improvements required and the unmet needs that exist today in epigenetic modification assays and screening were 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 (2017). It also highlights a few interesting differences between the survey groups.