Please enquire about single-user* electronic copy pricing
* single-user pricing is intended for small companies, of 40 or less employees, to access The Life Science Dashboard. Please order these copies directly with Percepta Associates.
Flow cytometry is a commonly used technique to count and examine cells. With a range of applications in diagnosis of cancer, immunology and disease research, flow cytometers are widely used by scientists in academia and industry. Flow cytometry represents a key growth area in the life sciences industry as life science suppliers continue improving products and services in this market.
In order to dive more deeply into the characteristics and dynamics of the market for flow cytometry, Percepta has introduced the Flow Cytometry Dashboard™, designed to take a snapshot of the current market landscape with the future goal of repeating and publishing the study to give Dashboard readers the ongoing story of how the market is adapting to new products, new competitors and sales and marketing strategies.
The Flow Cytometry Dashboard™ was developed from responses to a 32-question survey completed by 368 scientists predominantly located in North America and Europe. This Dashboard reveals key market indicators for the flow cytometry market as a whole.
This report is focused on the use of flow cytometry in life science research.
In June of 2011, Percepta fielded the Flow Cytometry Survey to a subset of the company’s panel of 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 June 8, 2011 and results collected through June 17, 2011. A total of 368 qualified scientists completed the survey. Results based on the aggregate of collected responses are revealed in this Flow Cytometry Dashboard.
Respondents from the academic, government and commercial market segments are well represented, with 23.0% of respondents employed in an industry setting and 75.2% of respondents employed in academic setting. 68.3% of respondents are from North America, while 30.1% reside in Europe and 1.6% reside in the rest of the world.
Junior (Lab Tech, Grad Students), mid-level (Post-Doc, Lab Manager) and senior (Professor/PI, Group Leader) scientists are well represented in the data set, with the most cited job titles being Scientist/Senior Scientist (21.2% of respondents) and Professor / Principal Investigator (17.9%).
A wide variety of scientific areas of specialization is also evident, led by Immunology (named by 35.8% of respondents as their primary or secondary area of expertise) and Molecular Biology (named by 30.7% of respondents). Cell Biology (29.9%) and Oncology Research (18.5%) are the only other applications named by more than 15% of respondents.
Small (1-5 scientists), medium (6-20 scientists) and large (>20 scientists) laboratories are well represented: 30.9% of respondents work in labs where 1 to 5 people perform experiments; 53.0% in labs with 6 to 20 experimenters, and the remaining 16.0% in labs with greater than 20 bench scientists.
44.3% of respondents indicated that 1 to 3 people in their laboratories perform flow cytometry experiments at least a few times each year. An additional 23.6% of survey participants revealed that 4 or 5 individuals perform flow cytometry experiments in their labs at least a few times each year. 12.2% of respondents work in labs where greater than 10 people perform flow cytometry experiments at least a few times each year.
Table of Contents
- 6 Figures and Tables
- 8 Executive Summary
- 10 Key Findings and Implications
- 13 Flow Cytometry Dashboard
- 15 Survey Methodology
- 17 Survey Invitation Text
- 18 Respondent Demographics
- 30 Frequency of Performance of Life Science Techniques
- 35 Frequency of Performance of Flow Cytometry
- 48 Reaction Throughput and Growth Rate
- 58 Respondents’ Stated Price Per Reaction
- 61 Total Market Size and Total Market Growth Rate
- 63 Market Shares by Segment (Share of Mention)
- 69 Customer Satisfaction And Interest In Switching Suppliers
- 76 Product Features That Influence Purchasing Decisions
- 84 Primary Downstream Applications and Use of Proteins
- 90 Desired Changes to Flow Cytometry Products
- 98 Appendix: Survey Questionnaire and Legend Table
Figures and Tables
- 20 Figure 1: Respondents’ Place of Employment
- 22 Figure 2: Respondents’ Location
- 24 Figure 3: Respondents’ Job Title
- 26 Figure 4: Respondents’ Areas of Expertise/Specialization
- 29 Figure 5: Number of Employees in Respondents’ Laboratories
- 32 Figure 6: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Life Science Techniques at Least a Few Times per Year
- 37 Figure 7: Performance of Additional Protein Related Methods
- 38 Figure 8: Frequency of Respondents Performing Flow Cytometry
- 40 Figure 9: Purchase of Formats of Flow Cytometry Consumables
- 41 Figure 10: Preference for Formats of Flow Cytometry Consumables
- 71 Figure 11: Factors That Limit Processing of More Flow Cytometry Samples
- 73 Figure 12: Respondent Satisfaction with Current Usage of Flow Cytometry Reagents
- 74 Figure 13: Percentage of Respondents That Have Switched Consumable Suppliers in the Last Six Months
- 78 Figure 14: Most Important Features of Flow Cytometry Consumables
- 79 Figure 15: Location of Flow Cytometer Primarily Used
- 80 Figure 16: Purchase of Flow Cytometer in the Last 12 Months
- 81 Figure 17: Most Important Features That Drove Recent Purchase of Flow Cytometer
- 82 Figure 18: Purchase of Flow Cytometer in the Next 12 Months
- 83 Figure 19: Most Important Features That Will Drive Future Purchase of Flow Cytometer
- 86 Figure 20: Primary Research Focus for Protein Analysis Using Flow Cytometry
- 88 Figure 21: Protein Classes/Categories Analyzed Using Flow Cytometry
- 27 Table 1: Respondents’ Areas of Expertise/Specialization (Values for Figures 4)
- 33 Table 2: Frequency of Performance of Various Life Science Techniques
- 34 Table 3: Frequency of Co-Performance of Various Life Science Techniques
- 39 Table 4: Frequency of Respondents Performing Flow Cytometry by Place of Employment and Location
- 42 Table 5: Preference for Formats of Flow Cytometry Consumables by Place of Employment and Location
- 43 Table 6: Percentage Consumables Spend for Flow Cytometry Formats
- 44 Table 7: Percentage Color Use in Flow Cytometry Assays
- 46 Table 8: Frequency of Co-Performance of Life Science Techniques with Flow Cytometry
- 47 Table 9: Frequency of Co-Performance of Flow Cytometry with Life Science Techniques
- 50 Table 10: Mean, Median and Trim Mean Monthly Throughput for Flow Cytometry Experiments
- 51 Table 11: Percentage of Respondents Performing Various Numbers of Flow Cytometry Samples Per Month
- 53 Table 12: Projected Growth in Performance of Flow Cytometry
- 60 Table 13: Mean, Median and Trim Mean Price Per Reaction for Flow Cytometry Sample
- 62 Table 14: Estimated Market Size for Flow Cytometry
- 65 Table 15: Primary/Secondary Suppliers for Flow Cytometry Reagents
- 67 Table 16: Primary/Alternate Supplier for Flow Cytometry Instruments
- 68 Table 17: Market Share Leaders for Flow Cytometry Reagents and Instruments
Available upon request