株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
TEL: 044-952-0102
表紙
市場調査レポート

蛍光画像ダッシュボードシリーズ:北米 & 欧州(EU)

2013 Fluorescent Imaging Dashboard Series 1 - NA & EU

発行 Percepta Associates Inc. 商品コード 264936
出版日 ページ情報 英文 166 Pages
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=114.77円で換算しております。
Back to Top
蛍光画像ダッシュボードシリーズ:北米 & 欧州(EU) 2013 Fluorescent Imaging Dashboard Series 1 - NA & EU
出版日: 2013年02月28日 ページ情報: 英文 166 Pages
概要

蛍光画像実験は、細胞活動のモニタリングに加え、さまざまな細胞内標的や複雑な生物組織の特定・定量化用にラボ試験で一般的に用いられています。がんの診断、細胞生物学、免疫・神経化学を含めた広範なアプリケーションにより、蛍光画像技術は産業・大学双方の科学者に幅広く使用されています。蛍光画像市場において、ライフサイエンスサプライヤーは製品・サービスの改善を続けているため、蛍光画像キット・試薬はライフサイエンス産業の主要な成長分野となっています。

当レポートでは、北米および欧州で蛍光画像に携わる科学者を対象に調査を行った結果から、各種ライフサイエンス技法の実施頻度、蛍光画像手法の使用頻度、処理率・使用率、主に利用するサプライヤー、製品区分別の市場シェアデータ、製品への満足度、購買決定への影響因子など、蛍光画像の利用に関する各種指標をまとめ、概略下記の構成でお届けいたします。

目次

  • エグゼクティブサマリー
  • 主な調査結果と影響
  • 蛍光画像ダッシュボード
  • 蛍光画像の市場機会マトリクス
  • 調査方法
  • 調査案内文
  • 回答者統計
  • ライフサイエンス技術の実施頻度
  • 蛍光画像手法の使用頻度
  • 処理率・使用率と市場成長率
  • 回答者が述べたサンプルあたりの価格
  • 市場規模、市場セグメント規模および全体の成長率
  • 市場シェア:セグメント・使用色素別
  • 顧客満足度とサプライヤー変更への関心
  • 購入決定に影響する製品の特徴
  • 実験の主要フォーカス・研究標的
  • 蛍光画像製品に望む変化
  • 調査アンケート
  • 付録?:短縮法

図表

目次
Product Code: 1302FLI

Fluorescent imaging experiments are commonly used laboratory tests for monitoring cellular activity as well as identification and quantification of various cellular targets and complex biological tissues. With a range of applications including diagnosis of cancer, cell biology, immunology and neuroscience, fluorescent imaging techniques are widely used by scientists in both, industry and academia. As life science suppliers continue improving products and services in the fluorescent imaging market, fluorescent imaging kits and reagents represent a key growth area in the life sciences industry.

The 2013 Fluorescent Imaging Dashboard™ was developed from responses to a 24-question survey completed by 462 scientists located in North America and Europe. This Dashboard reveals key market indicators for the fluorescent imaging market as a whole as well as for the following techniques representing market sub-segments:

  • Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence
  • High Content Screening
  • Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
  • Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH)
  • Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging

In order to dive deeply into the characteristics and dynamics of the market for fluorescent imaging, Percepta has launched the first in the series of Fluorescent Imaging Dashboards™ for the North American and European markets. This 2013 Dashboard provides a snapshot of the current fluorescent imaging market landscape, to establish a foundation of data to which future series of Life Science Dashboards can be compared, giving Dashboard readers the ongoing story of how the market is adapting to new products, new competitors and sales and marketing strategies.

Respondent Demographics

Respondents from the academic, government and commercial market segments are well represented, with 65.0% of the respondents employed in an academic setting, 31.1% in an industrial setting and 3.9% of respondents work for government organizations. 73.4% of respondents are from North America, while 26.6% reside in Europe.

Junior (Lab Tech, Grad Students, Post-Doctoral Fellow), mid-level (Department Manager, Project Manager, Scientist, Core Manager, Professor, Instructor, Lab Manager) and senior (PI, Group Leader, Lab Director, Senior Scientist, CEO) scientists are well represented in the data set, with the most cited job titles being Post-Doctoral Fellow/Research Fellow (18.6%) and Scientist (12.6%).

A wide variety of scientific areas of specialization is also evident, led by molecular biology (selected by 67.5% of respondents as an area of expertise), cell biology (59.3%) and biochemistry (42.6%). Immunology (27.7%), genetics (22.7%) and microbiology/infectious disease/virology (21.6%) are the only other areas of expertise selected by more than 20.0% of respondents.

Small (1 to 5 scientists), mid-size (6 to 10 scientists) and large laboratories (>10 scientists) are well represented in the respondent data set. A total of 45.1% of survey participants work in labs where one to five people perform experiments. 27.5% are employed in labs with six to ten scientists, while the remaining 27.5% of respondents work in labs where greater than 10 individuals work at the bench.

67.4% of respondents indicated that 1 to 5 people in their laboratories perform fluorescent imaging experiments at least a few times each year. An additional 19.0% of survey participants indicated that 6 to 10 individuals perform fluorescent imaging experiments in their laboratories at least a few times per year. Only 13.6% of respondents work in labs where greater than 10 people perform fluorescent imaging experiments at least a few times each year.

Figure 15: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescence Microscopy/ Immunofluorescence

©2005-2013 Percepta Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents

  • 7. Figures and Tables
  • 11. Executive Summary
  • 13. Key Findings and Implications
  • 17. Fluorescent Imaging Dashboard
  • 20. Fluorescent Imaging Market Opportunity Matrix
  • 22. Survey Methodology
  • 24. Survey Invitation Text
  • 25. Respondent Qualification
  • 27. Respondent Demographics
  • 36. Frequency of Performance of Life Science Techniques
  • 41. Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Imaging Methods
  • 64. Throughput and Market Growth Rates
  • 83. Respondents' Stated Price per Sample
  • 86. Market Size, Market Segment Sizes and Overall Growth Rate
  • 88. Market Shares by Segment (Share of Mentions) and Dyes Used
  • 124. Customer Satisfaction and Interest in Switching Suppliers
  • 130. Product Features That Influence Purchasing Decisions
  • 134. Primary Focus and Research Target of Experiments
  • 144. Desired Changes to Fluorescent Imaging Products
  • 153. Survey Questionnaire
  • 164. Appendix I: Abbreviated Techniques

Figures and Tables

  • Figure 1: Respondents' Place of Employment
  • Figure 2: Respondents' Location
  • Figure 3: Respondents' Job Title
  • Figure 4: Respondents' Areas of Expertise/Specialization
  • Figure 5: Number of Employees in Respondents' Laboratories
  • Figure 6: Performance of Various Life Science Techniques at Least a Few Times per Year
  • Figure 7: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods
  • Figure 8: Percentage of Respondents Performing Additional Methods At Least Once Every Six Months
  • Figure 9: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence
  • Figure 10: Frequency of Performance of High Content Screening
  • Figure 11: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
  • Figure 12: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH)
  • Figure 13: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging
  • Figure 14: Preference for Fluorescent Imaging Reagent Formats
  • Figure 15: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence
  • Figure 16: Primary Reagent Supplier - High Content Screening
  • Figure 17: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
  • Figure 18: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) Experiments
  • Figure 19: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging
  • Figure 20: Compounds Used In Fluorescent Imaging Experiments - Last 12 Months - Prompted Recall
  • Figure 21: Preferred Compounds for Fluorescent Imaging Experiments - Prompted Recall
  • Figure 22: Respondent Satisfaction with Fluorescent Imaging Products
  • Figure 23: Recent History of Switching (Last 6 Months)
  • Figure 24: Most Important Features of Products for Fluorescent Imaging Analysis
  • Figure 25: Research Target of Fluorescent Imaging Experiments
  • Figure 26: Desired Changes to Fluorescent Imaging Products
  • Figure A: Intent to Perform Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods - Future Users
  • Table 1: Frequency of Performance of Various Life Science Techniques
  • Table 2: Frequency of Co-Performance of Various Life Science Techniques
  • Table 3: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 4: Frequency of Performance of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods
  • Table 5: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 6: Frequency of Performance of High Content Screening by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 7: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 8: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 9: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 10: Preference for Reagent Formats - by Place of Employment
  • Table 11: Co-Performance of Life Science Techniques with Fluorescent Imaging Experiments
  • Table 12: Co-Performance of Fluorescent Imaging Experiments with Life Science Techniques
  • Table 13: Median, Mean and Trim Mean Monthly Throughput
  • Table 14: Median, Mean and Trim Mean Monthly Throughput - by Place of Employment
  • Table 15: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Numbers of Fluorescent Imaging Reactions per Month
  • Table 16: Projected Growth in the Performance of Various Fluorescent Imaging Techniques
  • Table 17: Median, Mean and Trim Mean Price per Fluorescent Imaging Data Point
  • Table 18: Estimated Market Size (North America and Europe)
  • Table 19: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence - by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 20: Most Common Dyes/Compounds - Fluorescence Microscopy/ Immunofluorescence - Unprompted Recall
  • Table 21: Primary Reagent Supplier - High Content Screening - by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 22: Most Common Dyes/Compounds - High Content Screening - Unprompted Recall
  • Table 23: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry - by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 24: Most Common Dyes/Compounds - Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry - Unprompted Recall
  • Table 25: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) Experiments - by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 26: Most Common Dyes/Compounds - Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) - Unprompted Recall
  • Table 27: Primary Reagent Supplier - Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging - by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 28: Most Common Dyes/Compounds - Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging - Unprompted Recall
  • Table 29: Summary - Market Share Leaders
  • Table 30: Compounds Used in Fluorescent Imaging Experiments - Last 12 Months - by Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 31: Preferred Compounds for Fluorescent Imaging Experiments - By Place of Employment and Location
  • Table 32: Satisfaction with Various Fluorescent Imaging Products
  • Table 33: Most Important Features of Products for Fluorescent Imaging Analysis
  • Table 34: Primary Research Focus Area of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods
  • Table 35: Primary Research Focus Area of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods - by Place of Employment
  • Table 36: Primary Research Focus Area of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods - by Location
  • Table 37: Research Target of Fluorescent Imaging Experiments - by Place of Employment and Location

List of Companies:

Please note that respondents were provided with an option to list other suppliers.

  • Abcam
  • Affymetrix/eBioscience
  • BD Biosciences
  • Biotium
  • EMD/Millipore
  • GE Healthcare/Amersham
  • Jackson Immunoresearch Laboratories
  • KPL
  • Licor
  • Life Technologies/Invitrogen/Molecular Probes
  • PerkinElmer/Caliper
  • R&D Systems
  • Santa Cruz Biotechnology
  • Sigma Aldrich
  • Thermo Fisher Scientific/Cellomics/Pierce
  • Vector Laboratories
Back to Top