3D Spheroid Culture Trends 2015
|出版日||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 three dimensional (3D) spheroid culture carried out in May 2015.
The survey was initiated by HTStec as part of our ongoing tracking of this emerging life science marketplace, and to update and extend HTStec's previous more general market report on 3D Cell Culture Trends (published July 2013).
The questionnaire was compiled to meet the needs of the 3D spheroid culture/generation vendor community. The objectives were to understand respondent's current interest in, experience of and progress made in applying 3D spheroid culture/generation technologies.
Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from all market segments involved in 3D spheroid culture globally.
The survey looked at the following aspects of 3D spheroid culture/generation as practiced today (2015) and in a few cases as predicted for the future (2017): main application area of interest/activity involving spheroids; disease areas most interested in applying to spheroids; level of implementation of spheroids into research activities; approaches/technologies investigated to generate/culture spheroids; level of familiarity with commercial technologies promoted for 3D spheroid culture/generation; type of spheroid culture format most want to achieve; cell types used to generate spheroids; how many different cell types are represented in spheroids; number of spheroids generated/used per year; number of different primary screens performed using spheroids and number of wells to be tested per screen; assays types applied to isolated spheroids; maximum price points for cell culture microplates that enable spheroid generation; annual budget for spheroid culture/generation consumables and its breakdown into components; vendor/supplier that first comes to mind as the leading player in area of spheroid generation/culture; vendors/suppliers from which the majority of the spheroid culture consumable products are purchased; most important features of a spheroid culture/generation technology; importance placed on ability to control aspects of spheroid development; aspects of currently available approaches to spheroid culture/generation which need to be improved; how spheroid cultures are currently monitored/assessed; what respondent's most want to achieve from monitoring/assessing spheroid cultures; awareness or direct use of specific instruments currently being promoted for spheroid imaging; does research necessitate 3D imaging/3D reconstruction of imaged spheroids; is 3D imaging/3D reconstruction needed when undertaking primary screening (HTS) against cultured spheroids; main limitations experienced in spheroid imaging today; why spheroids were chosen versus other approaches to 3D cell culture; level of success achieved with spheroid culture; time frame for spheroid cultures to become the 'established' 3D cell culture platform of choice for drug research; and gaps/limitations in existing spheroid culture-related products.
The main questionnaire consisted of 30 mainly multi-choice questions. In addition, there were 7 questions related solely to administration/survey demographics.
The survey collected 74 validated responses, of these 73% provided comprehensive input.
Survey responses were geographically split: 46% Europe; 28% North America; 12% Asia (excluding Japan & China); 7% Japan; 4% Rest of World; and 3% China.
Survey respondents were drawn from persons or groups culturing 3D spheroids today, including those not culturing 3D spheroids today - but planning future investigation.
Respondents represented 40 University/Research Institute/Not-for-Profit; 11 Pharmaceutical, 11 Biotech; 3 Government/ Military Defense; 3 Hospital/Clinic/Medical School; 2 Contract Research Organisation; 1 Agri Biotech/Plant Genomics; 1 Cosmetics; 1 Regen Med/Cell Therapy/Tissue Engineering Company; and 1 Contract Manufacturing Organisation.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 12 senior scientists/researchers; 12 professor/assistant professors; 11 principal investigators; 10 research scientists; 5 post-docs; 5 department heads; 4 graduates/PhD students; 4 section/group leaders; 4 directors; 4 others; and 3 lab managers.
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 & Biotech; 2) University; 3) Other Organisations; 4) Culturing 3D Spheroids Today; and 5) Planning 3D Spheroid Culture.
The majority of respondents were currently culturing 3D spheroids today.
The main area of interest/activity involving 3D spheroids was basic research.
The majority were most interested in applying 3D spheroids within the oncology/cancer disease area.
The median level of implementation of 3D spheroids into research today (2015) was low (<10% effort).