The main questionnaire consisted of 31 mainly simple multi-choice questions, focused mostly on assay and budget metrics. In addition, there were 8 questions related solely to survey demographics. The survey collected 78 validated responses, of these 73% provided comprehensive input. Responses were geographically split: 57% North America; 27% Europe; 14% Asia (excluding Japan); 1% ROW (Rest of World); and 1% Japan. Respondents came from 23 Biotech Companies; 15 Large Pharma; 11 Medium-Small Pharma; 8 Universities; 5 Virtual Biotech Companies; 4 Research Institutes; 4 Government Labs; 3 Not-For-Profit Research Centers; 3 Hospitals/Clinics/Medical Schools; 1 Academic Screening Center; and 1 Other. The research discipline of the majority of survey respondents was biology. Survey results were expressed as an average of all survey respondents.
In addition, the data was fully reanalyzed after sub-division into the following 5 survey groups: 1) Pharma; 2) Biotech; 3) Academic Research; 4) Europe; and 5) North America. 76% of respondents were currently undertaking kinase profiling assays in house or outsourcing at a feefor-service provider. The majority of kinase profiling was undertaken within the oncology therapeutic area. A median of 20%-40% of all kinase profiling activities were outsourced today (2013). The preferred in house kinase panel profiling assay format was activity assays and PerkinElmer was the preferred kinase panel profiling reagent/kit supplier. The preferred outsourced kinase panel profiling assay format was activity assays, and Life Technologies was the preferred fee-for-service provider. The majority thought that activity assays were preferable to binding assays, and the reasons given for preferring activity assays were docu
Copyright©2012 Vocus, Inc.
All rights reserved