Gut Microbiome Processing Trends 2015
|出版日||ページ情報||英文 54 Pages
This market report summarizes the results of HTStec's industry-wide global web-based benchmarking survey on gut microbiome processing carried out in June 2015.
The survey was initiated by HTStec as part of our tracking of emerging life science marketplaces.
The objective was to understand the need for automation in all aspects of gut microbiome processing using fecal/stool samples. Of particular interest was investigation of the requirements for instrumentation enabling automated fecal storage and aliquoting.
Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from all market segments already involved in or contemplating gut microbiome processing and analysis.
The survey looked at the following aspects of gut microbiome processing, as practiced today (2015) and in a few cases as predicted for the future (2017): why is gut microbiome research increasing in importance; main purpose or application when attempting gut microbiome analysis; interest in investigating disease phenotypes associated with an altered gut microbiome; animal species being investigated for gut microbiota; in addition to feces/stool other sources of microbiota investigated; what presentation format of fecal samples is preferred and whether anaerobic processing conditions are required; total amount (g) of feces typically collected and what amount is used per single microbiome analysis; methods used in fecal sample preparation for DNA and RNA extraction; number of fecal samples processed per 8 hour day and in total per year; main bottlenecks in sample preparation; downstream analytical methods plan to undertake for fecal microbiome analysis; main hurdles in gut microbiome research; extent to which automation has been implemented into fecal microbiome research; key drivers for automating fecal storage and aliquoting; features of greatest importance in an automated fecal storage and aliquoting platform; size of storage vessels wanted in an automated frozen fecal store; number of fecal samples wanted to process per 8 hour day and in total per year if access to an automated storage, aliquoting and processing platform were available; number of times fecal samples need reanalysis if freeze/thaw cycles could be avoided; capex and consumable budgets for gut microbiome research and its breakdown into components purchased; likelihood will purchase any new instrumentation for automated fecal aliquoting and processing over coming years; vendor/supplier that first comes to mind as leading player in area of gut microbiome research and gut microbiome-related automation; level of agreement with viewpoints on gut microbiome research; any unmet needs or significant gaps in the products that support gut microbiome research; and respondents who are willing to be contacted to discuss their requirements further, want more information or who are you interested in performing an in-lab evaluations/providing feedback on new microbiome automation/sample processing technology.
The main questionnaire consisted of 30 mainly multi-choice questions. In addition, there were 6 questions related solely to administration/survey demographics.
The survey collected 94 validated responses, of these 70% provided comprehensive input.
Survey responses were geographically split: 49% North America; 35% Europe; 10% Asia (excluding Japan & China); 4% Japan; and 4% China.
Respondents represented 54 University/Research Institute/Not-for-Profit; 13 Biotech; 8 Hospital/Clinic/ Medical School; 4 Pharmaceuticals; 4 Nutriceuticals; 3 Government/Military/Defense; 3 Contract Research Organisation; 2 Food Industry; 2 Other; and 1 Diagnostics.
Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 16 professors/ assistant professors; 15 principal investigators; 12 research scientists; 10 other job roles; 7 post-docs; 5 lab/research managers; 5 department heads; 5 directors; 4 section/group leaders; and 3 vice-presidents.
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) University; 2) Other Organisations; 4) Therapeutic Applications; 4) Food-Related Applications; and 6) Researching Today.
The main area of work of most respondents was basic research.
The majority of survey respondents were researching the gut microbiome today, the remainder planned future investigation.
'Lifestyle, diet, use of antibiotics/other drugs have been identified as major factors in disease initiation and progression' was ranked the greatest influence why gut microbiome research is increasing in importance today.
Identify novel therapeutics was the main application when attempting gut microbiome analysis.
Interest in investigating gastrointestinal disease phenotypes associated with altered gut microbiome was greatest for inflammatory bowel disease.
Interest in investigating non-gastrointestinal disease phenotypes associated with altered gut microbiome was greatest for obesity.
The majority were investigating the gut microbiome from humans.
In addition to fecal material the other sources of microbiota most investigated were tongue/saliva and blood.
The preferred presentation format of fecal samples for gut microbiome analysis was raw frozen at point of collection with processing done aerobically.
A median of 1g feces was collected for gut microbiome analysis and typically a median of 50mg of feces is used per single microbiome analysis.
The fecal sample preparation method for DNA and RNA extraction most used was manual spin columns.
Details of sample prep performed on fecal samples, vendor's reagents/assay kits and any separation instruments used were documented.
A median of 1-5 fecal samples were currently processed per 8h day, and 100-500 fecal samples per year.
Lack of standardized sample collection & stabilization methods was ranked the main bottleneck in sample preparation.
The downstream analytical method most plan to undertake for fecal microbiome analysis was 16S rRNA metagenomics sequencing.
Lack of standardization was rated the main bottleneck in gut microbiome research.
Most automation in gut microbiome research has so far been applied to sample analysis.
Sample integrity (avoid a freeze/thaw cycle) was ranked the most important driver for automating fecal storage and aliquoting.
Reliability was ranked the feature of greatest importance in an automated fecal storage and aliquoting platform.
The size of storage vessel most wanted for use in an automated frozen fecal store was the 2mL cryovial.
The median number of fecal samples respondents would like to process if they had access to an automated storage, aliquoting and processing system was 10-25 samples per 8h day and 500-1K samples per year.
A median of 3 repeat analyses were wanted per fecal sample, if a freeze-thaw cycle could be avoided.
Respondents reported a median annual capex budget of $25K-$50K for gut microbiome related instrumentation in 2015. The main component of this budget was sample analysis/detection systems.
Respondents reported a median annual consumable budget of $10K-$25K for gut microbiome related research consumables in 2015. The main component of this budget was sequencing reagents/chips.
Several bottom up models were developed to estimate the global market for gut microbiome research instrumentation and consumables using data on the budgets allocated by survey respondents. The markets were estimated to be $125M for instrumentation and $59M for consumables in 2015.
The median likelihood of purchasing any instrumentation for automated fecal aliquoting and processing by the end of 2017 was possible (26-50% purchasing).
The vendor or supplier that first comes to mind as a leading player of gut microbiome research was Illumina.
The vendor or supplier that first comes to mind as a leading player of gut microbiome related automation was Qiagen.
Of a list of viewpoints on gut microbiome research presented respondents showed most agreement with the statement 'bioinformatics is the key to successful microbiome research' and least agreement with statement 'compared to human genetics the lack of reference genomes (30-40%) and their size (4M vs 30k) will limit progress in gut microbiome research'.
Some feedback on unmet needs or significant gaps in the products that support gut microbiome research were documented.
28 respondents were willing to be contacted to discuss their gut microbiome processing requirements further; 48 respondents would like to receive more information about new microbiome automation/sample processing technology; and 27 respondents were interested in performing in-lab evaluations/providing feedback on new microbiome automation/sample processing technology.
The full report provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses to each question, its segmentation and estimates for the future (2017). It also highlights some interesting differences between the survey groups.