DALLAS, July 26, 2014 /True Blue Tribune/ –
Label-Free Binding Analysis Trends 2014 report is mainly about biomolecular binding analysis/interactions and it does NOT cover cell-based LF assays, Mass Spec or NMR approaches. It summarizes the results of a global web-based benchmarking survey on label-free (LF) binding analysis carried out in July 2014. The questionnaire was compiled to address the needs and interests of the LF binding analysis vendor community. The main objectives were to comprehensively document current experience of and future interest in investigating biomolecular interactions and binding analysis using LF technologies. The study also examined in detail the changing market landscape, application areas and future purchasing plans.
The report is a source of valuable information for vendors developing LF binding analysis systems, and provides the latest market information on this rapidly changing area. Equal emphasis was given to soliciting opinion from Pharma, Biotech and Academic Research segments, active in either small molecule drug discovery or protein and biologics characterization. The survey looked at the following aspects of label free (LF) binding analysis as practiced today (2014) and in some cases as predicted for the future (2016): areas where biomolecular binding analysis is primarily used; techniques used to assess binding interactions; how respondent’s research objectives are aided by LF technology; classification that most closely describes an LF binding assay; vendor’s LF technologies currently available in respondent’s lab; most recognizable LF instrument brands; current perception of different LF instrument suppliers; the most common limitation experienced using an LF assay approach: applications that LF binding assays are best suited for; application areas where LF binding assays are expected to gain most popularity over coming years; processes which could most benefit from the use or expanded use of LF binding assays; integration of any LF instruments/devices used for binding analysis into automated robotic systems; importance given to some application capabilities when purchasing a new LF system for binding analysis; attributes of a new label-free binding analysis system that impact a purchasing decision; what influences the timing of a decision to purchase a LF system; likelihood of purchasing a new LF instruments for binding analysis over the coming years; the primary use of respondent’s next LF instrument purchase; the top two vendors from which respondents are most likely to purchase a new LF instrument; annual capex and consumable budgets for LF binding analysis; resources most relied upon to learn about/gather information on new LF technologies and assays; conferences attended in the last 12 months; publications subscribed to, regularly read or visited online; and any unmet needs in LF binding analysis.
Survey responses were geographically split: 61% North America; 25% Europe; 5% Japan; 5% Asia (excluding Japan & China); and 4% Other Geographic Regions. Survey respondents were mainly drawn from persons actively engaged (key end users) in studying biomolecular interactions and binding analysis using LF technologies. Survey respondents came from 25 University/Research Institute/Not-for-Profit facilities; 17 Large Pharma; 14 Biotechs; 11 Medium-Small Pharma; 11 Biopharma; 10 Government Labs; 3 Diagnostics; 3 CROs; 2 Academic Screening Centers; and 1 Other. Respondent’s main area of work was: 32% biopharmaceutical discovery & development; 25% small molecule drug discovery & development; 22% academic research; 9% immunodiagnostic development; 5% vaccine development; 4% reagent development; and 3% other areas. Most survey respondents had a senior job role or position which was in descending order: 38 research scientists/associates; 27 senior scientists/researchers; 7 lab managers; 6 principal investigators; 6 others; 4 post-docs; 4 section/group leaders; 2 department heads; 2 directors; and 1 professor/assistant professor. Order a copy of this report at http://www.lifescienceindustryresearch.com/purchase?rname=18622 .
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 7 survey groups: 1) Small Molecule Focus; 2) Protein Focus; 3) Pharma; 4) Biotech; 5) Academic Research; 6) Europe; & 7) North America. 25% of respondents had a small molecule focus and 45% had a protein focus. 89% of respondents were actively using LF detection today for binding analysis. The area where most respondent’s primarily used biomolecular binding analysis was basic research. ELISA was still the technique most commonly used to assess binding interactions today. Feedback on how respondents are using LF assays to aid their research activities is listed. No agreement was obtained as to the classification that most closely describes an LF binding assay. The most common LF binding analysis instruments found in respondents labs today were from GE Healthcare/Biacore and Fortebio. The top 5 most recognizable LF instrument brands for binding analysis were GE Healthcare Biacore, ForteBio Octet, Bio-Rad ProteOn, PerkinElmer Enspire and MicroCal Microcalorimetry. The current perception of different LF binding analysis vendors ranked GE Healthcare/Biacore and ForteBio most favourably. The most common limitation experienced using an LF approach was lack of detection sensitivity. LF bindings assays were ranked most suited for kinetic rate constants and affinity determination.
The application where LF binding assays are expected to gain most popularity as a valid technological approach within the next few years was affinity screening. Secondary screening (hit confirmation) was the process which might benefit most from expanded use of LF protein assay technologies. Only a small minority of respondents have integrated any LF instruments or devices for binding analysis into an automated robotic system. Real-time monitoring/binding kinetics capability was ranked as the most important aspect when purchasing a new LF system for binding analysis. System reliability and robustness was the most desirable characteristic or attribute of an LF binding analysis system that would impact a purchasing decision. The budget cycle was rated what most influences the timing of a decision to purchase a LF system. The median likelihood that respondents will purchase a new LF instrument for binding analysis over the coming years (up to 2016) was possible (25%-50% probability). The most reported primary use of respondent’s next LF instrument purchase will be kinetic characterization for lead selection. The vendors instruments for LF binding analysis respondents expressed greatest interest in future purchasing were from GE Healthcare Biacore, ForteBio, PerkinElmer and Bio-Rad. Colleague referrals were rated as the resource most rely upon to learn about LF technologies. The conferences most attended in the past 12 months were AAPS, SLAS, CHI PEGS and GE’s DiPIA. The publications that the majority of respondents subscribe to, regularly read or visit online were Nature and Science.
Feedback on some unmet needs in LF binding analysis are listed, these highlighted the inability to adequately measure the kinetics of compound binding to cells. The median capex budget for new LF binding analysis instruments in 2014 was $100K-$150K, with a median of 1 LF binding instrument unit per capex budget. A bottom up model developed to estimate the global market for LF binding analysis instruments, using data on the capex budgets and the likelihood of purchasing derived from this survey, gave a value of around $180M. The median budget for LF binding systems consumables in 2014 was $10K-$25K pa. A bottom up model developed to estimate the global market for LF binding system consumables, using data on the consumable budgets derived from this survey, gave a value of around $75M. The full Label-Free Binding Analysis Trends 2014 report provides the data, details of the breakdown of the responses for each question, its segmentation and all the estimates for the future. It also highlights some interesting differences between the survey groups.
Explore more reports on biotechnology industry and other life sciences segments at http://www.lifescienceindustryresearch.com/ .
Life Science Industry Research brings to you to the latest reports in market research on Biotechnology, Diagnostics, Healthcare, Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals segments from leading research publishers across the globe. These reports also cover data and information on sub-segments and sectors under these life sciences categories.
Contact us (firstname.lastname@example.org / + 1 888 391 5441) for any of your research requirements or topics of interest. Our sales & research associates will be happy to help you find relevant market data.
TX, Dallas North – Dominion Plaza,
17304, Preston Road,
Suite 800, Dallas 75252
Connect With Us on:
G+ / Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/112612135957880308475/about