Catalog number: 1302FLI
Publication date: February 2013
Company-wide electronic copy: $3,975
Please enquire about single-user* electronic copy pricing
*single-user pricing is intended for small companies, of 40 or less employees. Please order these copies directly with Percepta Associates.
Introduction
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.
Survey Methodology
In January of 2013, Percepta fielded the Fluorescent Imaging Survey to a subset of the company’s panel of more than 60,000 life scientists. Individuals were invited by e-mail blast to click through to a webpage at perceptabioanalytix.com where the survey was hosted. Invitations were delivered on January 13, 2013 and results collected through January 22, 2013. A total of 462 scientists completed the survey. Results based on the aggregate of collected responses are revealed in this Fluorescent Imaging Dashboard ™.
Important Note: This report is focused on the use of fluorescent imaging techniques in the life science research market.
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.
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
- 29 Figure 1: Respondents’ Place of Employment
- 30 Figure 2: Respondents’ Location
- 31 Figure 3: Respondents’ Job Title
- 33 Figure 4: Respondents’ Areas of Expertise/Specialization
- 35 Figure 5: Number of Employees in Respondents’ Laboratories
- 38 Figure 6: Performance of Various Life Science Techniques at Least a Few Times per Year
- 45 Figure 7: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods
- 47 Figure 8: Percentage of Respondents Performing Additional Methods At Least Once Every Six Months
- 49 Figure 9: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence
- 51 Figure 10: Frequency of Performance of High Content Screening
- 53 Figure 11: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
- 55 Figure 12: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH)
- 57 Figure 13: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging
- 59 Figure 14: Preference for Fluorescent Imaging Reagent Formats
- 90 Figure 15: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence
- 96 Figure 16: Primary Reagent Supplier – High Content Screening
- 102 Figure 17: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry
- 108 Figure 18: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) Experiments
- 114 Figure 19: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging
- 120 Figure 20: Compounds Used In Fluorescent Imaging Experiments – Last 12 Months – Prompted Recall
- 122 Figure 21: Preferred Compounds for Fluorescent Imaging Experiments – Prompted Recall
- 126 Figure 22: Respondent Satisfaction with Fluorescent Imaging Products
- 129 Figure 23: Recent History of Switching (Last 6 Months)
- 132 Figure 24: Most Important Features of Products for Fluorescent Imaging Analysis
- 141 Figure 25: Research Target of Fluorescent Imaging Experiments
- 145 Figure 26: Desired Changes to Fluorescent Imaging Products
- 166 Figure A: Intent to Perform Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods – Future Users
- 39 Table 1: Frequency of Performance of Various Life Science Techniques
- 40 Table 2: Frequency of Co-Performance of Various Life Science Techniques
- 46 Table 3: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods by Place of Employment and Location
- 48 Table 4: Frequency of Performance of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods
- 50 Table 5: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence by Place of Employment and Location
- 52 Table 6: Frequency of Performance of High Content Screening by Place of Employment and Location
- 54 Table 7: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry by Place of Employment and Location
- 56 Table 8: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) by Place of Employment and Location
- 58 Table 9: Frequency of Performance of Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging by Place of Employment and Location
- 60 Table 10: Preference for Reagent Formats – by Place of Employment
- 62 Table 11: Co-Performance of Life Science Techniques with Fluorescent Imaging Experiments
- 63 Table 12: Co-Performance of Fluorescent Imaging Experiments with Life Science Techniques
- 67 Table 13: Median, Mean and Trim Mean Monthly Throughput
- 68 Table 14: Median, Mean and Trim Mean Monthly Throughput – by Place of Employment
- 69 Table 15: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Numbers of Fluorescent Imaging Reactions per Month
- 71 Table 16: Projected Growth in the Performance of Various Fluorescent Imaging Techniques
- 85 Table 17: Median, Mean and Trim Mean Price per Fluorescent Imaging Data Point
- 87 Table 18: Estimated Market Size (North America and Europe)
- 92 Table 19: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescence Microscopy/Immunofluorescence – by Place of Employment and Location
- 93 Table 20: Most Common Dyes/Compounds – Fluorescence Microscopy/ Immunofluorescence – Unprompted Recall
- 98 Table 21: Primary Reagent Supplier – High Content Screening – by Place of Employment and Location
- 99 Table 22: Most Common Dyes/Compounds – High Content Screening – Unprompted Recall
- 104 Table 23: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry – by Place of Employment and Location
- 105 Table 24: Most Common Dyes/Compounds – Fluorescent Immunohistochemistry – Unprompted Recall
- 110 Table 25: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) Experiments – by Place of Employment and Location
- 111 Table 26: Most Common Dyes/Compounds – Fluorescent in situ Hybridization (FISH) – Unprompted Recall
- 116 Table 27: Primary Reagent Supplier – Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging – by Place of Employment and Location
- 117 Table 28: Most Common Dyes/Compounds – Fluorescent Small Animal in vivo Imaging – Unprompted Recall
- 119 Table 29: Summary – Market Share Leaders
- 121 Table 30: Compounds Used in Fluorescent Imaging Experiments – Last 12 Months – by Place of Employment and Location
- 123 Table 31: Preferred Compounds for Fluorescent Imaging Experiments – By Place of Employment and Location
- 127 Table 32: Satisfaction with Various Fluorescent Imaging Products
- 133 Table 33: Most Important Features of Products for Fluorescent Imaging Analysis
- 137 Table 34: Primary Research Focus Area of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods
- 139 Table 35: Primary Research Focus Area of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods – by Place of Employment
- 140 Table 36: Primary Research Focus Area of Various Fluorescent Imaging Methods – by Location
- 143 Table 37: Research Target of Fluorescent Imaging Experiments – by Place of Employment and Location
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
Available upon request