dna amplification reagents m - phortech · 2016-11-16 · 2006/2007 north american msppsa dna...

�2006/2007 MSPPSA SERIES

DNA AMPLIFICATION

REAGENTS &METHODOLOGY

AN ANALYSIS OFMARKET SIZE & GROWTH

PURCHASE PLANS & SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT FOR

THE NORTH AMERICAN LIFE SCIENCERESEARCH MARKET

� �ulti-�lient �eport

byPhorTech InternationalSan Carlos, California

September 25, 2006

Copyright 2006 by PhorTech International, 238 Crestview Drive, San Carlos CA 94070. All rights reserved. No material containedin this report may be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher. This report is not intended tobe, and should not be construed as a recommendation for the purchase or sale of any securities mentioned herein. The informationhas been derived from statistical and other sources which we deem reliable but their completeness cannot be guaranteed. Opinionsexpressed herein are based upon our interpretation of available information and are subject to change.

2006/2007 North American MSPPSA DNA Amplification Reagents & Methodology

-2-


-3-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND................................................................... 11A. Survey Objectives ............................................................ 12B. Survey Methodology........................................................ 17

II. DEMOGRAPHIC SEGMENTATION ....................................... 19#0. Segmentation by Geographical Location.......................... 20#1. Utilization of Various Amplification Techniques ............. 22#3. Segmentation by Organizational Type ............................. 24#2. Segmentation by Scientific Discipline .............................. 32#4A. Respondents Working in Core Facilities/Amp Services .... 34#3A. Segmentation by Job Description .................................... 36#4. Years Experience with DNA Amplification ...................... 38#5. Basis for Response: Individual vs. Entire Lab Usage......... 42#6. # of Researchers/Lab Performing DNA Amplification ..... 44

III. MARKET SIZE ................................................................. 47#1A. Current Usage of DNA Amplification, Market Size......... 48#7. Annual Spend for PCR Reagents & Dollar Market Size... 52#10. User-Populations, DNA Amplification Applications........ 56#11. User-Populations, DNA Amplification Procedures .......... 58#12. User-Populations, Reagent Format for Amp Procedures .. 62#13. Customer Base for Amplification Reagent Suppliers ........ 69

IV. MARKET SECTOR ANALYSIS ............................................. 73#14. Analysis of Amplification Reagent Audit Data ................. 74

Overview ......................................................................... 75Amplification Rgts for Standard PCR.............................. 81Amplification Rgts for Real-Time/Quantitative PCR....... 84Amplification Rgts for Quantitative RT-PCR.................. 87Amplification Rgts for Cycle Sequencing ......................... 90Amplification Rgts for High Fidelity PCR....................... 92Amplification Rgts for Hot-Start PCR............................. 95Amplification Rgts for RNA/RT-PCR Two-Step............. 98Amplification Rgts for Colony PCR ................................ 101Amplification Rgts for Long PCR.................................... 103Amplification Rgts for RNA/RT-PCR (RNA to cDNA) . 106Amplification Rgts for RNA/RT-PCR One-Step............. 108Amplification Rgts for Multiplex PCR............................. 110Amplification Rgts for Remaining Minor Procedures ...... 112Summary of Current & Future Amp Reagent Market...... 116


-4-

V. CURRENT METHODOLOGY ............................................... 127#9. Preferred Format of PCR Reagents .................................. 128#10+. Applications Performed Using DNA Amplification ......... 135#20. Number of Targets Used to Detect Multiplex Reactions.. 138#21. Use of UNG/dUTP Incorporat'n for Carryover Protectn 140#22. Percentage of Reactions Using UNG/dUTP.................... 142

VI. PURCHASE PLANS............................................................ 145#8. PCR Reagent Sales Projections ........................................ 146

VII. SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT................................................... 149#15. Reasons for PCR Reagent Brand Selection....................... 150#16. Rejected Brands of PCR Reagents.................................... 163#17. Ranked PCR Reagent Supplier Performance.................... 168

VIII. FUTURE EXPECTATIONS................................................ 177#18. Desired Improvements to Amplification .......................... 178

IX. THE QUESTIONNAIRE...................................................... 181


-5-

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES

I. BACKGROUND................................................................... 11Survey Objectives ...................................................................................... 12Survey Methodology ................................................................................. 17Survey Response Rates............................................................................... 17

II. DEMOGRAPHIC SEGMENTATION ....................................... 19Distribution by Geographic Location ........................................................ 21Usage of DNA Amplification Techniques ................................................. 22Distribution by Type of Organization, All Respondents ............................ 24Distribution by Type of Organization, by Technique Performed............... 25Organizations Represented by Respondents to this Survey ........................ 26Distribution by Scientific Discipline.......................................................... 32Percent of Respondents Working in a Core Facility................................... 34Distribution by Job Description ................................................................ 36Mean, Median & Mode Years of DNA Amplification Experience, All ....... 38Years of DNA Amplification Experience, All Respondents......................... 38Years of Experience, Resps Grouped According to Amp Technique Used .. 39Level of Experience with DNA Amplification, All Respondents................. 39Level of Experience, Resps from Various Types of Organizations............... 40Mean, Median & Mode Years of Experience, Resps Using Indiv Rgts ....... 40Mean, Median & Mode Years of Experience, Resps Using Kits/M Mixes .. 40Basis for Survey Response.......................................................................... 42Mean, Median & Mode # of Researchers/Lab Using DNA Amplification . 44Number of Researchers/Lab Using DNA Amplification ............................ 45

III. MARKET SIZE ................................................................. 47Pop’n Estimate of North American (NA) Life Science Researchers ............ 49Pop’n Estimate of NA Life Science Rsrchrs Using DNA Amplification...... 49Pop’n Estimate of NA Life Science Rsrchrs Using DNA Amp Techniques 50Typical Spend/Yr for PCR Reagents, Individuals vs. Entire Labs ............... 53Statistical Annual Spend on PCR Reagents, Individuals vs. Entire Labs ..... 54Typical Spend/Yr/Researcher for PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Entire Labs .... 54Statistical Annual Spend/Researcher on PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs..... 54Extrapolated Annual Spend/Researcher for PCR Reagents in N America... 55Extrapolated Annual PCR Reagent Dollar Market Size in N America........ 55Resps’ Current Usage of Various DNA Amplification Applications ........... 56Extrapolated Pop'n of Researchers Using Applications, in N America........ 57Usage of Various DNA Amplification Procedures, All Respondents .......... 59Other Unlisted DNA Amplification Procedures Currently in Use ............. 59Extrapolated Pop'n of Researchers Using Amp Procedures, in N America.. 60Usage of Reagent Format by Procedure, Frequency of Mentions ............... 63Percent of Resps Using Individual Reagents for Each Procedure ................ 64Percent of Resps Using Master Mixes for Each Procedure.......................... 65Percent of Resps Using Kits for Each Procedure ........................................ 66Percent of User-Resps Preferring Each Reagent Format, by Procedure....... 67


-6-

Pop’n Estimate of NA Bioresearchers Using Each Format, by Procedure ... 68Suppliers of Thermostable Enzymes, % of Resps Purchasing from Each .... 70Verbatim Description of 'Other' Sources of Thermostable Enzymes.......... 70PCR Reagent Suppliers Receiving No Mentions........................................ 71Pop’n Estimate of NA Bioresearchers Purchasing Enzymes, by Supplier .... 71

IV. MARKET SECTOR ANALYSIS ............................................. 73Initial Overview...................................................................................... 75Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 75Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 75Resps' Dollar Spend by Procedure, Amplification Reagent Audit............... 76Dollar Market Size & N American Pop'n Estimates, by Amp Procedure ... 76Forecast Change Over the Coming 12 Mths, Amp Reagent Usage ............ 78Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate Over the Coming Year ................. 78Projected NA Market Size for Amp Reagents in One Year's Time ............. 78Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Amplification Reagent Audit ................... 79Estimated NA $ Sales Volume for Amplification Rgts, by Supplier............ 79Review of Format of Amplification Reagents, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 80

Amplification Reagents for Standard PCR.............................................. 81Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 81Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 81Resps' Annual Spend on Standard PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs............. 81Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Standard PCR Rgts ......... 81Projected NA Market Size for Standard PCR Reagents in 1 Year's Time ... 82Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Standard PCR Reagents........................... 82Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Standard PCR Rgts, by Supplier ............... 83Review of Format of Standard PCR Reagents ............................................ 83

Amplification Reagents for Real-Time Quantitative PCR....................... 84Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 84Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 84Resps' Annual Spend on Real-Time/Quan PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs 84Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Real-Time PCR Rgts....... 85Projected NA Mkt Size for Real-Time/Quan PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time .. 85Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Real-Time/Quan PCR Reagents .............. 85Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Real-Time/Quan Reagents, by Supplier .... 86Review of Format of Real-Time/Quan PCR Reagents ............................... 86

Amplification Reagents for Quantitative RT-PCR.................................. 87Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 87Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 87Resps' Annual Spend on Quantitative RT-PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs 87Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Quan RT-PCR Rgts........ 88Projected NA Mkt Size for Quantitative RT-PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time... 88Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Quantitative RT-PCR Reagents............... 88Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Quantitative RT-PCR Rgts, by Supplier ... 89Review of Format of Quantitative RT-PCR Reagents................................ 89


-7-

Amplification Reagents for Cycle Sequencing ......................................... 90Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 90Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 90Resps' Annual Spend on Cycle Sequencing Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs........ 90Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Cycle Sequencing Rgts .... 90Projected NA Mkt Size for Cycle Sequencing Rgts in 1 Year's Time.......... 90Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Cycle Sequencing Reagents...................... 91Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Cycle Sequencing Reagents, by Supplier ... 91Review of Format of Cycle Sequencing Reagents ....................................... 92

Amplification Reagents for High Fidelity PCR....................................... 92Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 92Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 92Resps' Annual Spend on High Fidelity PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs...... 92Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, High Fidelity PCR Rgts .. 93Projected NA Mkt Size for High Fidelity PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time........ 93Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, High Fidelity PCR Reagents.................... 94Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, High Fidelity PCR Reagents, by Supplier . 94Review of Format of High Fidelity PCR Reagents ..................................... 95

Amplification Reagents for Hot-Start PCR............................................. 95Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 95Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 95Resps' Annual Spend on High Fidelity PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs...... 96Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, High Fidelity PCR Rgts .. 96Projected NA Mkt Size for High Fidelity PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time........ 96Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, High Fidelity PCR Reagents.................... 97Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, High Fidelity PCR Reagents, by Supplier . 97Review of Format of High Fidelity PCR Reagents ..................................... 98

Amplification Reagents for RNA/RT-PCR (Two-Step) .......................... 98Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 98Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 98Resps' Annual Spend on Two-Step RT-PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs..... 99Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Two-Step RT-PCR Rgts . 99Projected NA Mkt Size for Two-Step RT-PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time....... 99Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Two-Step RT-PCR Reagents................... 100Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Two-Step RT-PCR Reagents, by Supplier 100Review of Format of Two-Step RT-PCR Reagents .................................... 100

Amplification Reagents for Colony PCR ................................................ 101Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 101Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 101Resps' Annual Spend on Colony PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs ............... 101Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Colony PCR Rgts............ 101Projected NA Mkt Size for Colony PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time ................. 101Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Colony PCR Reagents ............................. 102Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Colony PCR Reagents, by Supplier........... 102Review of Format of Colony PCR Reagents .............................................. 103


-8-

Amplification Reagents for Long PCR.................................................... 103Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 103Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 103Resps' Annual Spend on Long PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs .................. 103Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Long PCR Rgts ............... 104Projected NA Mkt Size for Long PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time..................... 104Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Long PCR Reagents................................. 105Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Long PCR Reagents, by Supplier .............. 105Review of Format of Long PCR Reagents.................................................. 105

Amplification Reagents for RNA/RT-PCR (Only RNA to cDNA) ......... 106Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 106Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 106Resps' Annual Spend on RNA/RT-PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs ........... 106Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, RNA/RT-PCR Rgts ........ 106Projected NA Mkt Size for RNA/RT-PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time.............. 106Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, RNA/RT-PCR Reagents.......................... 107Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, RNA/RT-PCR Reagents, by Supplier ....... 107Review of Format of RNA/RT-PCR Reagents........................................... 108

Amplification Reagents for RNA/RT-PCR (One-Step) .......................... 108Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 108Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 108Resps' Annual Spend on One-Step RT-PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs ..... 108Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, One-Step RT-PCR Rgts.. 108Projected NA Mkt Size for One-Step RT-PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time ....... 109Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, One-Step RT-PCR Reagents ................... 109Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, One-Step RT-PCR Reagents, by Supplier. 110Review of Format of One-Step RT-PCR Reagents .................................... 110

Amplification Reagents for Multiplex PCR ............................................ 110Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 110Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 110Resps' Annual Spend on Multiplex PCR Rgts, Individuals vs. Labs ........... 110Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate in 1 Yr, Multiplex PCR Rgts........ 111Projected NA Mkt Size for Multiplex PCR Rgts in 1 Year's Time ............. 111Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Multiplex PCR Reagents ......................... 111Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Multiplex PCR Reagents, by Supplier....... 112Review of Format of Multiplex PCR Reagents........................................... 112

Amplification Reagents for Remaining Minor Procedures ...................... 112Number of Entries & Total Annual $ Spend, Amp Reagent Audit ............ 112Estimated User Pop'n & Annual $ Market Size Estimate, N America........ 112Resps' Annual Spend on Rgts for Minor Procedures, Individuals vs Labs... 113Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate, 1 Yr, Rgts for Minor Procedures . 113Projected NA Mkt Size for Rgts for Minor Procedures in 1 Year's Time.... 113Suppliers’ Dollar Market Share, Reagents for Minor Procedures................ 114Estimated NA $ Sales Volume, Rgts for Minor Procedures, by Supplier .... 114Review of Format of Reagents for Minor Procedures ................................. 115


-9-

Summary of Current & Future Amplification Reagent Market............... 116Extrapolated Future $ Market Size Estimates for Reagents, by Procedure .. 116Extrapolated N American Current Dollar Market Shares, by Procedure..... 117Extrapolated N American Future Dollar Market Shares, by Procedure....... 118Annual NA Sales of Amp Rgts for Major Suppliers, by Procedure ............. 119Invitrogen’s Dollar Product Mix, by Procedure ......................................... 121Applied Biosystems’ Dollar Product Mix, by Procedure............................. 122Qiagen’s Dollar Product Mix, by Procedure .............................................. 123Roche Applied Sciences’ Dollar Product Mix, by Procedure ...................... 123Promega’s Dollar Product Mix, by Procedure ............................................ 124Stratagene’s Dollar Product Mix, by Procedure.......................................... 125

V. CURRENT METHODOLOGY ............................................... 127Preferred PCR Reagent Formats, Resps Using DNA Amplification ........... 128Verbatim Reasons for Preferring Different Formats of PCR Reagents........ 129Number of Listed Applications Performed Using DNA Amplification ...... 135Respondent's Usage of DNA Amplification Applications .......................... 136Verbatim Description of 'Other' DNA Amplification Applications ........... 136Number of Targets per Reaction, Current Multiplex PCR Work .............. 138Verbatim Description of 'Other' Number of Targets per Multiplex Rxn ... 138Frequency of UNG/dUTP Incorporation for Carryover Protection ........... 140% DNA Amplification Reactions Performed Using UNG/dUTPs............. 142

VI. PURCHASE PLANS............................................................ 145Forecast Change in PCR Reagent Usage, Over the Coming 12 Months .... 146Calculated Weighted Avg Growth Rate Over the Next Yr, All Amp Rgts .. 147Projected N American Market Size for Amplification Reagents in 1 Year... 147Extrapolated Future $ Market Size Estimates for Reagents, by Procedure .. 147

VII. SUPPLIER ASSESSMENT................................................... 149Reasoning Behind PCR Reagent Supplier Selection, by Supplier(s) ........... 150Most Frequently Mentioned Reasons for Selecting a PCR Rgt Supplier..... 161Customer Satisfaction with PCR Reagent Suppliers................................... 163Customer Satisfaction Ratings, Leading PCR Reagent Suppliers................ 164Satisfaction Rates and Confidence Levels for Major Suppliers.................... 165Verbatim Comments, Reasons for Rejecting Specific Brands of PCR Rgts. 165Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Best Value for Money ............................. 168Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Easiest to Use .......................................... 169Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Best for Long Range PCR ....................... 170Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Highest Specificity .................................. 171Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Highest Fidelity ...................................... 172Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Products for Problematic PCR ................ 172Ranked Suppliers’ Performance: Ease of Optimization .............................. 173

% of Purchasing Resps Ranking Each Supplier as Highest ......................... 175


-10-

VIII FUTURE EXPECTATIONS................................................. 177Most Important Improvements to Current Work...................................... 178Verbatim Description of ‘Other’ Improvements to Current Work............. 179

IX. THE QUESTIONNAIRE...................................................... 181


-11-

I. BACKGROUND


-12-

A. SURVEY OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this survey was to provide the management of our clientcompanies with an analysis of the current market for DNA amplificationreagents and most common methodologies utilized in the U.S. Thisrepresents the attitudes and expectations of a cross-section of researchers whocurrently utilize DNA amplification in their work.

This year, the data for Volume 1, the instrumentation report and this report,on reagents and methodologies, was gathered using two separate surveys. Thisenabled us to expand the number of questions in each of these areas. Thecompanion report, DNA Amplification Instrumentation, was published onJuly 28tth, and includes analyses of both the real-time quantitative PCRplatform and thermal cycler markets.

The surveying was blind, with no reference made to any clients for thesurvey. To encourage respondents to express themselves freely, the survey wasanonymous, and made frequent use of open-ended questions.

We used numerous demographic screens to characterize respondentsincluding their organization, years of experience with DNA amplification,scientific discipline, job description, and the type of laboratory (either a corefacility providing DNA amplification services or not a core facility).

All respondents were also asked to indicate the basis for their responses fromtwo options, either their individual work or the combined work of theirentire laboratory. Those answering on behalf of their lab were queried as tothe number of researchers using DNA amplification and covered by thelaboratory’s budget.

Early on the in survey, respondents were asked which of three techniques(standard PCR, real time PCR and cycle sequencing) are currently used.Researchers selecting the fourth option (‘I do not perform any of these’) werenot qualified to continue, and were therefore sent to an exit page.

The next series of questions characterizes current PCR reagent usage. Inparticular, researchers were asked to provide the annual budget for PCRreagents and the percent change in usage they foresee in the coming 12months. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate the preferred formatof PCR reagents (from a list of three options: individual reagents, kits ormaster mixes), the reasoning behind this preference and to identify currentapplications using DNA amplification from a list of 12 options and an ‘other’write in category.

The subsequent question refers to the types of PCR used in the past twelvemonths. The list of 30 types included standard PCR, AFLP, Alu-PCR,


-13-

asymmetric PCR, colony PCR, cycle sequencing, DD-PCR, degenerate PCR,high fidelity PCR, hot-start PCR, in situ PCR, inverse PCR, long PCR,multiplex PCR, nested PC, PCR-ELISA, PCR-RFLP, PCR-SSCP, QC-PCR,RACE, RAPD, real-time/quantitative PCR, RNA/RT-PCR (only RNA tocDNA, RNA/RT-PCR (one step), RNA/RT-PCR (two-step), TAIL-PCR,touchdown PCR, vectorette PCR and an open-ended optional response forthose using an ‘other’ procedure. Respondents using multiplex PCR were alsoasked to indicate how many targets they detect per reaction.

The procedures identified in this question form a ‘Constructed List’ whichthe survey engine uses in later questions where the researchers is asked toprovide further information about products used in this work. For example,respondents are next asked to indicate which format of reagents (individual,kits or master mixes) they prefer for each of the procedures listed.

In the next question, researchers are asked to check off the suppliers ofthermostable enzymes used in the past 12 months (from a list of 50+companies as well as an open-ended write-in option for other unlistedcompanies and a final 'none of these').

Next, respondents were directed to a detailed audit question of thermostableenzymes. In particular, researchers were asked to indicate the procedure (froma pull-down menu listing procedures from the earlier question), then thesupplier (from a second pull-down menu itemizing suppliers from theprevious question), the preferred format, the percent of PCR reagent budgetspent on those reagents and the anticipated percent change in 1 years’ time.This was then repeated until the entire budget was accounted for or the fiverows in the table were full.

Respondents were then asked why they chose these brands and whether thereare any suppliers which they refuse to buy from and why. This is followed bya question asking them to rank eleven leading U.S. reagent suppliers (and anoptional ‘other’ category) in seven key areas. In particular, researchers choosethe highest ranked supplier with regards to value for money, ease of use,results for long range PCR, highest specificity, highest fidelity, providingproducts for problematic PCR and for ease of optimization.

Finally, respondents were asked to indicate which of thirteen improvementswould be most important to their work. Choices here include bettersensitivity, higher fidelity, higher specificity, higher yield, less cycling time,less reagent consumption, less set-up time, longer amplicons, lower samplevolume, minimal optimization, the capability to perform real-time analysis,room temperature assembly, or a high success rate across multiple amplicons.Alternatively, researchers could write-in an unlisted improvement.

The last series of three questions addresses respondents’ usage ofUNG/dUTP. The first of these concerns the frequency of UNG/dUTP


-14-

incorporation for carryover protection (in very general terms; always,sometimes, never or not yet, but I plan to). The second and final query asksfor what percentage of reactions are UNG/dUTP used.

To better accomplish the survey objectives, a number of programmed featureswere employed. To speed respondents through this survey, skip patterns wereprogrammed into the questionnaire. For example, respondents were asked thesize of their labs only if they indicated that they were answering the survey fortheir entire laboratory and were shown the query regarding the number oftargets multiplexed if they had indicated using that procedure in Question#11.

As briefly mentioned earlier, Constructed lists were also employed for severalquestions to simplify and personalize the survey based upon responses toearlier questions. For example, in Question #11, respondents were asked toindicate the amplification procedures they had used in the past 12 monthsfrom a comprehensive list of 30 procedures plus an ‘other’ option for unlistedprocedures. In the subsequent audit table (Question #14) only selectedprocedures were listed in the pull-down menus. The second set of pull-downmenus in the audit table was also programmed to only include the PCRreagent suppliers indicted in Question #13.

Tailored questions were used to imprint the basis respondents used to answerthe survey. In Question #6, respondents were asked whether they wouldanswer the survey based upon their own personal usage or based on thecombined usage of their laboratory. Depending upon their answer,subsequent questions were worded either ‘your individual usage’ or ‘yourlaboratory’s usage’.

Major objectives of the survey were to estimate the present size of thethermostable enzyme market for kits and individual reagents. For each ofthese markets, we will also determine the present market share for leadingcompanies in North America based upon respondents’ computedexpenditure. We will also calculate the average monthly consumption anddollar spend for each type of reagents, as well as for those used for eachprocedure. In conjunction with the assessment of suppliers in the final seriesof questions, clients should be able to evaluate their present market positions,identify marketing strengths and weaknesses, and determine strategies todevelop or improve sustainable competitive advantage.

This report is the second 2006/2007 study in a growing series of marketresearch analyses that began in 1993. We plan to continue the series, addingtitles and alternating between North American and international markets,depending upon our clients’ suggestions and support.

The first report in the 2006/2007 series covers the North American marketfor


-15-

DNA Amplification Instrumentation

The three reports published in the 2004/2005 series cover the U.S. marketfor:

DNA Sequencing & Sequencing ServicesElectrophoretic Equipment & Reagents and

HPLC Columns in the Life Sciences.

In addition, a single report examining the European market covers the:

Microarray Market Analysis (including Arrayers, Scanners and Microarrays).

Reports published in the 2003/2004 series cover the following U.S. topics:

Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 1Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 2

Protein Expression SystemsProteomics Research, Volume 1 (Sample Prep & 2-D)

Proteomics Research, Volume 2 (Mass Spec & Protein Microarrays).

Reports released in the 2002/2003 series include the following U.S. topics:

DNA Amplification InstrumentationDNA Amplification Reagents & Methodology

Microplate Reader & Equipment Market

Topics in the U.S. series published in 2001/2002 include:

Electrophoretic Instrumentation & ReagentsMolecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 2

This series also includes the following reports covering international markets:

Densitometers & Image Analysis in EuropeDNA Sequencing in the Far East.

The 2000/2001 series covered the following three reports:

U.S. DNA AmplificationU.S. Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 1

Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 1 in the Far East.

In the 1999/2000 series, we have released three reports examining thefollowing markets. These are:

Microplate Equipment in Europe


-16-

DNA Sequencing in the U.S.Monoclonal Antibodies in the U.S.

The following nine titles have been released in the series for 1998/1999:

Cell & Tissue Culture in the U.S.Cytokines & Growth Factors in the U.S.

DNA Amplification in the Far EastDNA Sequencing in Europe

Electrophoretic Gel Media in EuropeHPLC in the Life Sciences in the U.S.

Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 1Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 2 in the Far East

Protein Expression Systems in the U.S.

The following titles have been released in the U.S. series for 1997/8:

DNA SequencingMolecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 1Molecular Biology Reagent Systems, Vol. 2

Molecular Diagnostics.

Clients are reminded that additional copies of any of these reports that havebeen purchased in the past are available at a modest cost. Please contact us forfurther details. Those wishing to know publication dates for any of thesereports, or wanting to read summaries of the 72+ reports in this series areinvited to visit our Web site at: www.phortech.com.


-17-

B. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

A single source of names was used for this survey, the PhorTech panel of lifescience researchers. E-mail invitations to take part in the survey were sent to aselected North American cross-section of 6,264 individuals from our panel of40,000 plus life science researchers. These customized email invitations weresent in batches between July17th and July 24th.

Each participant received an email invitation including the web address of thesurvey and a unique validation code and password. To improve responserates, respondents were able to select from a choice of nine prizes forcompleting the survey. These were a custom designed tee-shirt, an Inovamicrolight, a laser pointer, a stainless steel pocket knife, or a gift card towards1 pound of Starbucks Coffee, a $5 gift card for Barnes & Noble bookstores,or alternately, a $5 electronic gift certificate for Amazon. Alternately,respondents could elect to make a $5 contribution in their name to Habitatfor Humanity.

Apart from the prize, no inducements were employed. The questionnaireswere anonymous, a combination of tabular entry, check-offs, and open-endedprobes.

From the 6,264 invitations sent, 1,103 (17.6%) were returned asundeliverable. We believe that a total of 5,161 North American life scienceresearchers then, were invited to participate in this study.

By the close of the survey on July 27th, 454 researchers started the survey, ofwhich 396 had completed it. Since even partially completed surveys stillprovide valuable information, this includes a further 28 rows (out of a total of38 rows) from respondents who did not complete the survey but provided atleast some information beyond the demographic questions. An additional 20researchers indicated that they do not currently perform DNA amplificationand were therefore not qualified to complete the survey. The number ofresearchers answering each question will be included in the beginning of theResults section.

The 454 researchers starting the survey translates to an 8.8% response ratewhile 396, equivalent to a 7.7% rate of response, completed the survey. Thismet our expectations.

All of these respondents did identify themselves by filling in the prize entryform. This makes it possible for us to double-check the responses to anyquestions by telephoning respondents, improving the overall confidence inthe data.


-18-

Based upon all 424 complete and incomplete responses, the overall statisticalresults presented in this report are accurate to within ± 4.8 percentage pointsat the 95% confidence level. Statistical results based on the 396 researcherscompleting the survey, are accurate to within ± 4.9 percentage points at the95% confidence level. In our experience, 95% confidence levels areappropriate primarily for scientific experiments. Most business people makingdecisions are content to be right more often than they are wrong. In this case,a 65% confidence level, (in which you would be right twice as often as youwould be wrong) is more appropriate. Conveniently, 65% confidence levelsare nearly exactly one half the size of the 95% level, thus our 65% levelswould be ± 2.4% for all 424 respondents and ± 2.5% for the 396respondents completing the survey.

According to the binomial distribution theory, these values are valid when themeasured event has about a 50% probability. When the measured event isconsiderably more rare than this, the corresponding confidence intervals getsmaller. On the other hand, these confidence intervals are valid for answersbased upon the complete pool of respondents. When analyzing data for agroup that includes only a small segment of respondents, the answers are lesscertain and confidence intervals are correspondingly larger.

In this report, we will calculate more exact individual confidence intervalswhen appropriate. In our comments, we will note whether given differencesare significant at either the 65% or 95% level. To aid our clients indetermining the appropriate confidence interval for various combinations ofsample size and measurements, we have created the following table shownbelow. Just read the closest percentage on the left and find the closest samplesize column. The intersection will show the confidence interval for thatcombination. For example, a measured 35% value with a sample size of 200has a 95% confidence interval of ± 6.6%.

95% Confidence Intervals for Various Percentages & Sample SizesPercent n=10 n=20 n=50 n=100 n=200 n=500 n=1000

5% ±13.5% ±9.6% ±6.0% ±4.3% ±3.0% ±1.9% ±1.4%10% ±18.6% ±13.1% ±8.3% ±5.9% ±4.2% ±2.6% ±1.9%20% ±24.8% ±17.5% ±11.1% ±7.8% ±5.5% ±3.5% ±2.5%35% ±29.6% ±20.9% ±13.2% ±9.3% ±6.6% ±4.2% ±3.0%50% ±31.0% ±21.9% ±13.9% ±9.8% ±6.9% ±4.4% ±3.1%65% ±29.6% ±20.9% ±13.2% ±9.3% ±6.6% ±4.2% ±3.0%80% ±24.8% ±17.5% ±11.1% ±7.8% ±5.5% ±3.5% ±2.5%90% ±18.6% ±13.1% ±8.3% ±5.9% ±4.2% ±2.6% ±1.9%95% ±13.5% ±9.6% ±6.0% ±4.3% ±3.0% ±1.9% ±1.4%


-19-

II. DEMOGRAPHICSEGMENTATION


-20-

QUESTION 0. Question:In which of the following geographic regions of the world are you currentlyliving and working?

• USA/North America• Europe• Japan• Asia/Oceania• Other

Rationale:This screening question identifies the geographic location of researchersresponding to the email invitation. For this particular survey, onlyrespondents located in the USA or North America were permitted tocontinue with the survey.

Results:Since the survey engine was designed to disqualify any researcher notindicating the USA or North America as their location, 100% of these DNAamplification users are working in this geographical region.

To look at the distribution of respondents in the three countries in NorthAmerica, USA, Canada and Mexico, we turn to the addresses provided in thefinal prize selection page. Based on the 396 respondents completing thissurvey, the pie chart located at the top of the next pages shows theseresearchers are predominantly from the United States.


-21-


-22-

QUESTION 1. Question:Which of the following techniques do you currently use? (Please select ALLthat apply).

• Standard PCR• Real time PCR• Cycle sequencing• I do NOT currently perform any of these.

Rationale:This introductory question has been expanded from the 2002 survey toindicate not only respondent’s usage of DNA amplification, but also toidentify researchers using standard PCR, real time PCR and cycle sequencing.This also serves as a gating question, identifying respondents who are notinvolved with DNA amplification and therefore, not qualified to completethe survey.

Results:In the horizontal bar chart below, we present the distribution of the 704mentions for these three techniques by all 424 user-respondents.


-23-

Consistent with each of our previous studies, standard PCR is the mostcommon of these three techniques, performed nearly universally and the soleDNA amplification technique for 35.8% of these researchers. In comparison,over half (54.5%) indicate using real-time PCR and 7.1% report this as theirsole technique. Finally, one out of every five researchers uses cyclesequencing, virtually all of them in combination with another amplificationtechnique.

In fact, while these respondents use an average of 1.7 techniques each, 40 ofthese 424 researchers, 9.4%, indicate involvement with all three of theseoptions, a further 39, or 9.2%, use standard PCR and cycle sequencing, and159, or 37.5%, perform real time PCR and standard PCR. As mentionedpreviously, the remainder are working with one technique exclusively.

Analysis:As reported in the recently released report on DNA AmplificationInstrumentation, in order to examine trends in this market, these results havebeen compared with those published in our 2002 DNA amplification surveyof the US market. In the 2002 report, we concluded that 30.8% wereinvolved with real time PCR techniques at that time, substantially less thanthe near 55% of respondents to the current survey.

Comparing these results with recent studies, this question was also asked of413 respondents to the DNA amplification instrumentation study. Therespondents to this study are slightly (but not significantly) less likely to berunning standard PCR (92.0% amongst these researchers and 98.3%amongst respondents to the instrumentation study), and slightly less likely tobe performing real time PCR (54.5% compared with 63.0%). Thepercentage of cycle sequencing users is identical.

Despite the small differences, the expansion of real time PCR is evident inboth of these studies as well as in our Laboratory Product Usage studies.Thermal cyclers for real time PCR was not only one of the fastest growinginstrument/apparatus categories in the 2002 Global Product Usage study, butalso the single fastest growing category of instrument (compared with 67other categories) in the recently published 2006 report covering the NorthAmerican market. We expect that this expansion will continue, at aminimum, over the next 12 months.


-24-

QUESTION 3. Question:How would you best describe your organization (Best single answer):Academia, Hospital/medical school, Biotech/pharma industry, Otherindustry, Government agency, or Private research foundation?

Rationale:With these responses, we examine the distribution of respondents across thefive types of organizations listed. This will identify where our respondents arelocated and the primary sources of funding for current DNA amplification.

Results:Before analyzing, the data required some editing to make the responsesinternally consistent. In order to reflect the source of funding, those workingin a hospital, medical school or health science center have all been categorizedas a hospital or medical school. Researchers working in private researchfoundations, many of which have an email ending in .org, and those receivingprivate funding from organizations such as HHMI, have been classified asprivate research foundations. VA Medical Centers and military organizationsare considered to be government agencies.

The distribution of responses from all 424 DNA amplification users is shownin the following pie chart.


-25-

Nearly 70% of the respondents to this survey are equally divided betweenhospitals and medical schools, and academic institutions. Industrialresearchers make up 15.6% of these researchers with researchers funded byprivate organizations and government agencies making up the remainder.

The following horizontal bar graph depicts the distribution of the 390respondents using standard PCR (according to the responses to Question #1)with the 231 respondents performing real time PCR and the 83 who areamplifying DNA using cycle sequencing. Remember that a single respondentmay be included in just one or, in some cases, all three of these distributionsdepending on the techniques currently in use.

Despite small variations, there is no significant difference in the distributionof researchers using each of these techniques across these five types oforganizations. While academics appear to be more likely to use cyclesequencing and researchers located in hospitals or medical schools seem to bemore likely to be using real time PCR, these differences were much lessmarked in the companion study on DNA Amplification Instrumentation.

Analysis:For completeness, we also present a list of the organizations represented bythe respondents to this survey. These are presented in alphabetical order bytype of organization with the largest sector, hospitals and medical schools,listed first.


-26-

Organizations Represented by Respondents to this SurveyHospital/ Medical School

• Albany Medical Center• Baylor College of Medicine• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center• Boston University School of Medicine• Boston University-Mallory Pathology Associates• Brigham and Women’s Hospital• Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine• Centre Hospital de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), CANADA• Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles• Children's Hospital, Boston• Children's Mercy Hospitals and Clinics• Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons• Dalhousie University CANADA• Duke University Medical Center• Emory University School of Medicine• Georgetown University• Harvard School of Public Health• Indiana University• Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis• Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine• Loma Linda University• Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center• Louisiana State University Neuroscience Center• Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School• McGill University• Medical College of Georgia• Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC)• New York Medical College• New York University Medical School• Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine and College of Pharmacy• Northwestern University• Oregon Health Sciences University• Penn State College of Medicine• Robert Wood Johnson Medical School• Rockefeller University• Rush University Medical Center• Stony Brook University• Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, CANADA• Tulane University Health Sciences Center• Tulane University School of Medicine• University of Alabama at Birmingham• University of Arizona College of Medicine Research• University of Arizona, Tucson• University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences• University of British Columbia, CANADA• University of California, Los Angeles• University of California, San Diego School of Medicine• University of California, San Francisco


-27-

• University of Chicago• University of Colorado Health Science Center• University of Florida• University of Illinois at Chicago• University of Iowa College of Medicine• University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinic• University of Kentucky College of Medicine• University of Manitoba, CANADA• University of Massachusetts Medical School• University of Michigan• University of Michigan Dental School• University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth• University of Mississippi Medical Center• University of Nebraska Medical Center• University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine (UNECOM)• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill• University of North Texas Health Science Center• University of Pennsylvania• University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center• University of Rochester School of Medicine• University of Sherbrooke, CANADA• University of Southern California• University of Southern Florida• University of Tennessee Health Science Center• University of Texas School of Public Health• University of Texas, Medical Branch• University of Toronto, CANADA• University of Utah, ARUP Laboratories• University of Vermont, Vermont Cancer Center• University of Virginia• University of Washington• University of Wisconsin, Madison• UT Southwestern Medical Center• Vanderbilt University Medical Center• Wayne State University School of Medicine• Weill Medical College, Cornell University

Academia• Ball State University• Boston University• Caltech• Canisius College• Claremont Colleges• Clemson University• Cleveland State University• Columbia University• Cornell University• Emory University• Georgia Institute of Technology• Holy Cross College


-28-

• Johns Hopkins University• Kansas State University• Louisiana State University• Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine (LSU/SVM)• Luther College• Michigan State University• Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Wise Center• Montana State University• Montclair State University• North Carolina State University• North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine (NCSU-CVM)• North Dakota State University (NDSU)• Oklahoma State University• Oklahoma State University Center for Veterinary Health Sciences• Oregon State University• Penn State University• Purdue University• Queens College• Rockefeller University• Rutgers University• South Dakota State University• Southern Illinois University• Stanford Human Genome Center (SHGC)• Stanford University• SUNY Upstate• SUNY@Buffalo• Texas A&M University• Thomas Jefferson University• Tufts University Cumming School of Veterinary Medicine• Tulane University Hebert Center• Universidad Autonoma de Coahuila, MEXICO• University at Buffalo• University of Alberta, CANADA• University of Arizona• University of California Davis• University of California Los Angeles• University of California, Irvine• University of California, San Diego• University of California, Santa Cruz• University of Colorado at Boulder• University of Denver• University of Hawaii• University of Illinois, Chicago• University of Kansas• University of Kentucky• University of Louisiana, Lafayette• University of Louisville• University of Maryland• University of Maryland, Baltimore County• University of Michigan


-29-

• University of Minnesota• University of Missouri, St. Louis• University of Montana• University of New Hampshire• University of North Carolina, Charlotte• University of Notre Dame• University of Oklahoma• University of Pennsylvania• University of Pittsburgh• University of Puget Sound• University of Rochester• University of Southern California• University of Southern Indiana• University of Texas, Austin• University of Vermont• University of Virginia• University of Washington• University of Wisconsin, Madison• University Southern Mississippi• Utah Valley State College• Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University• Washington State University• Willamette University

Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical Industry• AgilentTechnologies• Allergan Pharmaceuticals• Allergan, Inc• AstraZeneca R&D Boston• Attagene• BD Diagnostic Systems• Bioniche Therapeutics Ltd• Brinkmann• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company• Cambria Biosciences• Celgene• Colgate-Palmolive• Dow Chemical• DuPont Crop Genetics• E5P• EMD Biosciences• Enzo Life Sciences• Epicentre Biotechnologies• Evolutionary Genomics• Fidelity Systems• Fort Dodge Animal Health• Genzyme Corp• Guild Associates, Inc• Invitrogen Corp• Eli Lilly and Company


-30-

• Merck & Co., Inc• MetaMorphix Inc.• Molecular Creativity• Molecular Innovations• Monsanto• Neurogen Corp• Nomadics, Inc.• Novation Pharmaceuticals Inc• Sangamo BioSciences, Inc.• Schering-Plough• Sigma-Aldrich• Schering-Plough Research Institute• Syntonix Pharmaceuticals• USB Corporation• Vaccinex• VaxInnate Corp• Ventana Medical Systems, Inc.• Wyeth Research• Wyeth Vaccines• Zen-Bio, Inc

Private Research Foundation• A I DuPont Hospital for Children• Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation• Brigham & Women's Hospital Brown University• Children's Hospital and Research Center, Oakland• Children's National Medical Center• Columbus Children's Research Institute• Doheny Eye Institute• Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC)• H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center• HHMI/University of California, San Francisco• HHMI/UT Southwestern Medical Center• IIT Research Institute• John Wayne Cancer Institute• Juravinski Cancer Centre• La Jolla Bioengineering Institute• LMCA• Mayo Foundation• Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center• Ochsner Clinic Foundation• Partners/Massachusetts General Hospital• Roswell Park Cancer Institute• Scripps Research Institute• Shriners Hospital• Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center• Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research• St. Jude Children's Research Hospital• The Jackson Laboratory• Wadsworth Center


-31-

Government Agency• Argonne National Laboratory• CBER Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention• Federal Drug Administration• George Washington University/Veterans Affairs Medical Center• INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, CANADA• James H Quillen VA Medical Center• Los Angeles County Department of Public Health• National Cancer Institutes, Bethesda• National Cancer Institutes, Frederick• National Institutes of Health NIH• National Institutes of Health/NIAID• National Institutes of Health/NIDCD• National Institutes of Health/NIEHS• National Marine Fisheries Service• New York State Department of Health• Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences• US Army Medical Research Institute• US Department of Health and Human Services/Public Health Services/CDC/NIOSH• US Geological Survey• VA Medical Center, Detroit• VA Medical Center, Long Beach• VA Medical Center, Portland• Vermont Forensic Lab• Veterans Administration Puget Sound Health Care System• Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

Other Industry• Acambis• DuPont Company• Molecular World Inc.• Novozymes, Inc.• Quest Diagnostics Inc• TJ Technologies


-32-

QUESTION 2. Question:Please indicate below your primary scientific discipline.: (Best single answer):biochemistry, biotechnology, cell biology, endocrinology, genetics, genomics,microbiology, molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, pathology orother?

Rationale:The responses to this demographic screen will indicate the most commonscientific disciplines of researchers performing DNA amplification.

Results:In the horizontal bar chart below, we present the demographic profile of the424 amplification users who answered this question.

Analysis:As mentioned in the Amplification Instrumentation report, althoughrespondents represent all 11 disciplines (plus some other unlisted ones),molecular biology continues to be the primary discipline for respondent usingDNA amplification. However, looking at studies from year to year, thepercentage of molecular biologists is decreasing from 55% in our 1999 studyof this market, to 42% in 2002, and to the near 38% of respondents shownabove. Instead, current DNA amplification users tend to be spread across a


-33-

broader range of scientific disciplines in the life sciences, indicative of themore general acceptance of these important techniques.


-34-

QUESTION 4A. Question:Do you work in a core facility that provides DNA amplification services?• Yes, I work in a core facility.• No, I don’t work in a core facility.

Rationale:Core facilities may have a different set of requirements, sample throughput,priorities and needs regarding DNA amplification and the associatedinstrumentation. This question was designed to identify those respondentswithin our sample. Later, we may examine the responses to some question forthese core facilities separately from that for all respondents.

Results:Just over 90% of the 424 respondents answering this question do not work ina core facility while 9.4% answered this question positively and therefore dowork in a core facility which provides DNA amplification services.

Analysis:As in the companion Amplification Instrumentation report, the smallproportion of respondents located in a core facility indicates that the resultspresented in this report largely represent the work on individual rather thancore labs. This also shows that, unlike sequencing, amplification is


-35-

prominently performed in individual laboratories and not in centrallocations.


-36-

QUESTION 3A. Question:What most closely fits your job description?: laboratory technician/researchassistant, laboratory manager/director/ supervisor, research associate, graduatestudent, postdoctoral fellow, laboratory scientist, principal investigator,project manager, senior scientist, department head, vice president, corefacility director, purchasing agent/buyer, scientific writer or journalist, salesor marketing specialist.

Rationale:The job descriptions of respondents to this survey reveal a great deal aboutthe seniority of the respondent. We would hope to have a broad range ofpositions including scientists working at the bench as well as those overseeingDNA amplification work. The two responses not included here, scientificwriters or journalists and sales or marketing specialists, are included on thislist to enable the survey engine to disqualify these respondents fromcontinuing with the survey.

Results:The distribution of these 424 researchers is shown in the following horizontalbar graph.


-37-

Analysis: We received responses from all levels of seniority including a goodrepresentation of principal investigators, accounting for just over 31% of therespondents. This is more than double the number of laboratory managers,directors or supervisors, the second most frequently mentioned position. Thenext five positions account for a remarkably similar proportion,approximately 10% of these DNA amplification users. We believe that thesepositions (postdoctoral fellows, lab scientists, senior scientists, researchassociates and lab technicians/research assistants) are more likely to beinvolved in the day to day running than the more senior positions with muchlower representation, such as department heads and vice presidents.


-38-

QUESTION 4. Question:How long (in years) have you been using DNA amplification?

Rationale:This question allows us to determine respondents’ level of experience withDNA amplification, as well as to investigate the expansion of this technique.Depending upon the results, we may be able to generate meaningful cross-tabulations for lower versus highly experienced users.

Results:In the vertical bar chart below, we present the demographic profile for all 424respondents. These varied from 1 to 20 years with a mean of 10.8, and 10-year median and mode. Combined, these researchers bring 4,599 years ofexperience with DNA amplification to this survey.

Despite the broad range, most respondents fall between 6 and 10 years ofwork in this area (including 32.8%) or between 11 and 15 years, whichincludes 35.4% of respondents to this survey.

Analysis:First, we examined the level of experience amongst these researchers usingeach of the three techniques listed in Question #1. As seen in the following


-39-

table, the smaller group of respondents using cycle sequencing is moreexperienced with DNA amplification, on average, than researchers usingstandard PCR or real time PCR. While real-time PCR is a relatively newtechnique, respondents who have adopted it report a mean of 10.9 years ofexperience with amplification techniques in general.

Years of Experience with DNA Amplification, Grouped According to TechniqueApproach #

RespsTotal Mean Median Mode

Real time PCR 231 2,517 10.9 10 10Standard PCR 390 4,319 11.1 11 10Cycle sequencing 83 1,040 12.5 14 15

Next, in order to simplify the analysis, we set our customary (but arbitrary)limits creating five different levels of experience. These are described in thefollowing table.

Years Experience Level<1 Novice1-5 Moderately Experienced

5.1-10 Experienced10.1-20 Highly Experienced

>20 Expert

In the next horizontal bar chart, we reanalyze the data after placing eachrespondent into the appropriate category.


-40-

Since this technique is not yet more than 20 years old, we should not besurprised to find no ‘expert‘ respondents.

In the following horizontal bar graph, we then use this classification to moreeasily depict the level of experience amongst researchers from each type oforganization.

Although respondents working in other industries and government agenciesappear to be less experienced than their counterparts in other types oforganizations, the reader is reminded that these three distributions are basedon the smallest number of respondents and therefore more likely to be shiftedby a few respondents. In fact, these variations are not significant (due to therelatively low number of researchers in each group and therefore wideconfidence intervals).

A similar analysis of respondents using one format of reagents exclusively(according to the responses to Question #9) reveals that researchers usingindividual reagents have, on average, 11.2 years of experience with DNAamplification. This is slightly higher, but not significantly different, than the10.6 year average and 10.4 year average for users of kits and master mixes,respectively. Therefore, we believe that all groups of respondents are wellqualified to provide meaningful responses to the questions on this survey.

In the companion report on DNA Amplification Instrumentation, we notedthat respondents appear to be growing in experience with the increasing


-41-

maturation of this technique and their experience is not being diluted by alarge influx of new users. We have found the following mean years ofexperience with DNA amplification.

• 2006:10.8 years• 2002: 8.1 years• 1999: 7.8 years• 1995: 4.7 years


-42-

QUESTION 5. Question:You can answer the following questions based upon your own personal useof DNA amplification or based upon the combined usage for your entirelaboratory.

Will you be answering questions based upon your individual usage or basedupon the combined usage of your laboratory?: individual or entire laboratory.

Rationale:The responses to this question indicate the basis of the responses. It will beparticularly important to take this factor into account when evaluating theannual budgets, and when extrapolating responses to the US market.

Results:As shown in the following pie chart, just over half of these 424 researcherswill be answering this survey on behalf of their laboratory.

Analysis:This is a virtually identical graph as that for the report on instrumentation aswell as previous reports. This is perhaps to be expected considering thepositions of seniority these researchers hold. In fact, principal investigators,laboratory managers, and lab technicians or research assistants are more likely


-43-

to be reporting their combined laboratory usage while senior scientists aresplit evenly between these two bases. On the other hand, research associates,graduate students, postdocs and lab scientists are more likely to describe theirindividual usage.


-44-

QUESTION 6. Question:You indicated that you will be answering the DNA amplification usagequestions based upon the combined usage of your laboratory.Please let us know how many researchers in your laboratory are currentlyworking with DNA amplification and are covered by your laboratory’sbudget.: ______ researchers in the lab currently working with DNAamplification.

Rationale:Respondents answering on behalf of their laboratories were directed to thissupplemental question asking for the number of lab researchers who areinvolved with DNA amplification and covered by the lab budget. Inconjunction with the annual budget, responses representing entirelaboratories will be divided by this factor to obtain estimates of usage on anindividual basis. This permits the direct comparison of these values with theresponses describing individual usage.

Results:The 238 responses describing the number of lab researchers working withDNA amplification who are also covered by the laboratory budget are spreadover a broad range, from 1 to 30 researchers. The average number of usersper lab is 5.6 researchers, with a median of 5 and a mode of 2 researchers.The distribution of responses is shown in the vertical bar graph found at thetop of the next page.

Despite the broad range in the number of users per lab, there is still a heavyconcentration of labs with from 2 to 6 researchers using DNA amplification.In this data set, 173 respondents, equivalent to 72.7% are reporting for theselabs. Most of the remaining 27% are representing even larger groups ofresearchers using amplification.

Combining all 238 respondents reporting the amplification usage of their lab,the responses to subsequent questions then actually represents the DNAamplification performed by 1,370 North American life science researchers.


-45-

Analysis:Adding the 186 respondents who will answer this survey based on theirindividual usage to the 1,370 DNA amplification users represented by thoseresponding for their lab, we conclude that the amplification described in thisreport is based on the work of 1,556 researchers.


-46-


-181-

IX. THEQUESTIONNAIRE


-182-

2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey

To begin, please enter the UserID and password from your survey invitation here:

User ID Password

Next

© 2006 PhorTech International

2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyThank you for taking time to answer our survey questionnaire. You should be currently using PCR, real time/quantitative PCR or cycle sequencing for bioresearch. We estimate that completing this survey will take you 12 minutes or less.

We will be pleased to send your choice of a nice selection of free gifts as a thank you for taking part in the survey. You can choose between a new limited edition tee shirt with the message "When it comes to amplification, my opinion counts" (in M, L, or XL). The specially commissioned graphic is shownat left.

Or, you could select an Inova brilliant LED keychain microlight, our quality laser pointer (a great giftitem), or a stainless steel executive pocket knife.

Alternatively, you might select a $5 gift card to Barnes & Noble (good towards a book, CD or cup of coffee on us), a $5 e-mail gift certificate good for on-line purchases at Amazon.com or a Starbucks gift

card good for one pound of coffee which can be used on-line or at your local coffee shop. In this survey, we are offering the option to donate $5 in your name to Habitat for Humanity instead of receiving a personal gift.

Please be sure to select your choice of free gift at the end of the survey. Thank you for participating.

First, tell us a little about yourself.In which of the following geographic regions of the world are you currently living and working? Select one:Select one:

Next

0% 100% © 2006 PhorTech International

2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey1. Which of the following techniques do you currently use? (Please select ALL that apply).

standard PCRreal time PCRcycle sequencingI do NOT perform any of these.

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey2. Please indicate below your primary scientific discipline. Select one:Select one:

3. How would you best describe your organization? Select one:Select one:

3a. What most closely fits your job description? Select one:Select one:

4. How long have you been using DNA amplification? years

4a. Do you work in a core facility that provides DNA amplification services?

Yes, I work in a core facility.No, I don't work in a core facility.

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyYou can answer the following questions based upon your own personal use of DNA amplification or based upon the combined usage for your entire laboratory.5. Will you be answering questions based upon your individual usage or based upon the combined usage for your laboratory? individual laboratory

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyYou indicated that you will be answering the PCR usage questions based upon the combined usage of your laboratory.6. Please let us know how many researchers in your laboratory are currently working with PCR reagents and covered by your laboratory's budget.

researchers in the lab currently using PCR reagents & covered by lab's budget

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey7. Considering your laboratory usage, how much do you spend for PCR reagents in a typical year? (Please specify both the amount and the currency.)

per year on average in Select one:Select one:

8. What percent change do you foresee in PCR reagent usage over the coming 12 months? (Please enter an estimate and indicate if positive or negative.)

% Increase Decrease No change

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyThe next series of questions refers to your preferences regarding PCR reagents.9. Considering your laboratory usage, which format(s) of PCR reagents do you prefer to purchase? (Please check ALL that apply). Individual reagents Kits Master mixes

Please explain

10. For which applications do you/your laboratory currently use DNA amplification? (Please check ALL that apply)

allele discrimination in vitro labeling

cloning PCR products microdeletion screening

cycle sequencing presence of sequence

DNA/cDNA amp/microarrays site-directed mutagenesis

expression profiling SNP genotyping

genetic mapping other:

GMO detection

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey11. Based upon your laboratory usage, which of the followingamplification procedures have you used in the previous 12 months. (Please check ALL that apply).

Used in Past 12 Months

Standard PCR

AFLP

Alu-PCR

Asymmetric PCR

Colony PCR

Cycle sequencing

DD-PCR

Degenerate PCR

High fidelity PCR

Hot-Start PCR

In situ PCR

Inverse PCR

Long PCR

Multiplex PCR

Nested PCR

PCR-ELISA

PCR-RFLP

PCR-SSCP

QC-PCR

RACE

RAPD

Real-Time/Quantitative PCR

Rep-PCR

Quantitative RT-PCR

RNA/RT-PCR (only RNA to cDNA)

RNA/RT-PCR (one-step)

RNA/RT-PCR (two-step)

TAIL-PCR

Touchdown PCR

Vectorette PCR

Other:

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey12. Considering your laboratory usage, which format of PCR reagents do you use for each of the following procedures you have been involved with in the previous 12 months? (Please indicate whether the PCR reagents for each procedure are purchased as individual reagents, kits, and/or master mixes).

Individual reagents Kits Master mixes

Standard PCR

Colony PCR

Cycle sequencing

High fidelity PCR

Hot-Start PCR

Long PCR

Multiplex PCR

Real-Time/Quantitative PCR

RNA/RT-PCR (one-step)

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyThe following questions pertain to your laboratory usage of PCR reagents.13. From the following list, please select ALL thermostable enzyme suppliers that you have used in the past twelve months? (Please select ALL that apply).

AbGene Allele Biotechnology Ambion Amersham Biosciences Ampliqon Applied Biosystems BD Clontech Biogene Biogenomyx Bioline Bioneer BioNexus Bio Pioneer Bio-Rad/MJ Bioron Chemicon Continental/CLP CPG-Biotech Denville eENZYME EmbiTec Epicentre Eppendorf Eurogentec Expression Technologies Fermentas Finnzymes Fisher Scientific Gene Choice GeneCraft Genessee Scientific Hytest Intron Biotechnology Invitrogen Koma Biotechnology Microzone Molzym MWG-Biotech Nippon Gene Novagen (EMB Biosciences) New England Biolabs PCG Biotech Promega Qbiogene Qiagen Roche Applied Science See-Amp Sigma-Aldrich Stratagene Stressgen Bioreagents SuperArray Biosciences TaKaRa Toyobo US Biochemicals Other: None of these

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey14. Please let us know the major suppliers, format, and percent of your budget spent for each amplification procedure you/your lab currently use. Beginning with the largest budget spend, please carefully complete each row of the table. How do you expect this to change in the coming 12 months? Continue until you have filled the table or accounted for your entire budget.

Procedure Supplier Format

% PCR Rgt

Budget% Changein 1 Year

a. Select ProcedureSelect Procedure Select SupplierSelect Supplier Select FormatSelect Format

b. Select ProcedureSelect Procedure Select SupplierSelect Supplier Select FormatSelect Format

c. Select ProcedureSelect Procedure Select SupplierSelect Supplier Select FormatSelect Format

d. Select ProcedureSelect Procedure Select SupplierSelect Supplier Select FormatSelect Format

e. Select ProcedureSelect Procedure Select SupplierSelect Supplier Select FormatSelect Format

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey15. Why did you choose these brands?

Brand(s):

Because:

16. Are there brands of PCR reagents that you wouldn't buy?

Yes No

If yes, which brand(s) and why?Brand(s): because:

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey17. From the alphabetic list of PCR reagent suppliers, please mark the one you would rank highest in each area. (You may choose asupplier more than once).

Criteria Suppliera. Best value for money Select one:Select one:

b. Easiest to use Select one:Select one:

c. Best for long range PCR Select one:Select one:

d. Highest specificity Select one:Select one:

e. Highest fidelity Select one:Select one:

f. Best for problematic PCR Select one:Select one:

g. Ease of optimization Select one:Select one:

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey18. From the following list of possible improvements to DNA amplification, please choose the ones that would be most importantto your current laboratory work. (Please select up to 5 improvements from the list below).

better sensitivity longer amplicons

higher fidelity lower sample volume

higher specificity minimal optimization

higher yield real-time analysis

less cycling time room temperature reaction assembly

less reagent consumption high success rate across multiple amplicons

less set-up time other:

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyJust a last couple of questions, then we are finished.20. You indicated earlier that you currently employ multiplex PCR in your work.

If so, how many targets do you detect per reaction?

2345other: sorry, don't use multiplex PCR

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent SurveyAnd finally:21. How often do you use UNG/dUTP incorporation for carryover protection?

alwayssometimesnevernot yet, but I plan to

Next


2006 DNA Amplification Reagent Survey22. For what percentage of your reactions do you use UNG/dUTP?

1% - 25%26% - 50%51% - 75%76% - 100%I do not use UNG

Next


Survey Completion, Gift Selection, & Contact Information OK. now please choose your free gift from the following list: Select one:Select one:

Please make sure we have your current contact information by completing the fields below:

First Name, Last Name:

Organization: Department: Address: City, State, Postcode:

Country: Telephone: (Not required, but helpful in case of problem delivering gift).

E-mail:

Next

0% 100%

©2006 PhorTech International, All Rights Reserved.

dna amplification reagents m - phortech · 2016-11-16 · 2006/2007 north american msppsa dna...

Documents