Microarrays By MedPanel, Inc. October 2006

1
MicroarraysBy MedPanel, Inc.October 2006
2

• Contents
• Project Objectives 2
• Methodology Sample 3
• Respondent Practice Background 4
• Executive Summary 5-10
• Detailed Findings 11-56
• Respondent Background 12-18
• Current Product Usage 19-25
• Perceptions toward Manufacturers 26-49
• Reason for Recent Market Shift 50-56

3
Study Objectives
Primary Objective Understand the market for
microarray systems

• Specific Objectives
• Identify the typical laboratory environment for
  microarray analysis
• Assess current uses and potential future uses of
  microarrays and microarray instruments
• Understand the factors involved in the purchasing
  decision for microarrays
• Evaluate other technologies used in laboratories
  with microarrays
• Elicit lab directors opinions of manufacturers
  of microarrays
• Clarify reasons for the recent market shift in
  microarray systems

4
Methodology Sample

• Survey Specifics
• A 20-minute self-administered survey was fielded
  online via MedPanels Web site from September
  22-29, 2006.
• Sample
• The total sample comprises 54 laboratory
  directors.
• Respondents were selected from MedPanels
  database sampling across the U.S.
• To qualify, respondents were required to meet the
  following criteria
• Be familiar with either Affymetrix or Illumina
• Make decisions regarding the purchase of
  microarrays

5
Respondent Practice Background
All of the lab directors were familiar with
Affymetrix, while fewer than half were familiar
with Illumina. All participants make decisions
regarding the purchase of microarrays. A
majority of the respondents make decisions
regarding the purchase of microarray instruments.
Percentage Making Purchase Decisions for
Microarray Instruments (n54)
Familiarity with Manufacturers (n54)
S1. Are you familiar with the following
companies? Please select all that apply. S3. Do
you make decisions regarding the purchase of
microarray instruments?
6
Executive Summary
7
Executive Summary

• Respondent Background Information
• The majority of the respondents are from the
  Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic
• Most of the lab directors work in academic labs
  with the greatest proportion working in small
  academic labs
• Very few work in industry or hospital labs
• In a typical lab there are about 5 PhDs, 4 lab
  technicians, and 4 other lab members
• Thirty-nine percent of lab directors indicated
  that their lab budget is between 250,000 and
  500,000
• About three-quarters of the respondents indicated
  that the National Institutes of Health is a
  primary source of funding for their labs
• The most frequently reported core research areas
  were in genetics and genomics
• Current Product Usage
• Almost 90 of the respondents stated that they
  use microarrays for gene expression analysis
• The most frequently suggested future use for
  microarrays was for diagnostics
• On average, labs have 1 microarray instrument,
  use 15 microarrays per month, and have a budget
  of 84,070 for microarrays

8
Executive Summary

• Current Product Usage
• One-third of the respondents purchase microarrays
  quarterly
• Many indicated that they purchase arrays only
  when they need them
• Almost half of the lab directors indicated that
  their labs do not purchase microarray scanners
• Many of the respondents indicated that they use a
  core facility for scanning
• Forty-eight percent of the respondents indicated
  that microarray analyses take place in-house
  while 43 indicated that analyses take place in a
  core research lab
• Sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility
  were reported as the three most important factors
  in microarray purchasing decisions
• Perceptions toward Manufacturers
• The most frequently selected other technologies
  currently used in the labs are PCR and DNA
  sequencing
• Half of the lab directors indicated that they use
  Applied Biosystems as a mass spectrometry
  provider
• Seventy percent of the respondents use Applied
  Biosystems as a provider for sequencing
  technology

9
Executive Summary

• Perceptions toward Manufacturers
• Fifty percent of the respondents use DNA
  sequencing for re-sequencing and 50 also use it
  for gene expression
• More than half of the lab directors reported that
  Applied Biosystems has the best technology for
  next-generation sequencing
• Indicating that their opinion is based on their
  experience and reputation in the microarray
  market
• Read length was the most frequently chosen
  important factor for evaluating next- generation
  sequencing technology followed by sensitivity
• Most of the respondents indicated that they
  currently purchase genome testing products from
  Affymetrix
• For labs that make arrays on-site, about 40 are
  made in-house
• Applied Biosystems received the highest overall
  impression rating and Illumina received the
  lowest rating in the same category
• Many indicated that these rankings were based on
  limited experience with some of the companies
• Applied Biosystems received the highest overall
  impression rating and Illumina received the
  lowest rating in the same category

10
Executive Summary

• Perceptions toward Manufacturers
• Half of the lab directors have used human gene
  expression arrays made by Affymetrix
• The human sampler arrays were the most frequently
  used of the Illumina arrays
• In the category of product quality, Affymetrix
  received the highest rating of 4.0 on a 5 point
  scale
• Affymetrix also received the highest ratings in
  quality of sales support, breadth of microarray
  product offerings, overall quality of DNA
  analysis arrays, and overall quality of gene
  expression arrays
• Illumina received the lowest ratings in each of
  these categories
• The U133 by Affymetrix and sequencing arrays made
  by Applied Biosystems received the highest
  ratings for specific arrays
• The reputation and market experience of
  Affymetrix were the strengths reported most
  frequently. The weakness or area for improvement
  reported most commonly was the high cost of their
  products.
• Many also indicated that Affymetrix has poor
  customer service
• Lab directors reported that Illumina products
  have good prices but need a greater range of
  products to offer

11
Executive Summary

• Reason for Recent Market Shift
• Forty-six percent of lab directors stated that
  their use of microarrays has increased over the
  past year while 41 indicated that their array
  purchasing has remained the same
• Reasons for increases more funding and more
  projects or studies
• On average, the cost of microarrays reportedly
  has decreased by 100 in the last year
• More than half of the lab directors stated that
  they are receiving discounts on microarrays
• Forty-eight percent indicated that they have
  switched vendors based on the price of
  microarrays
• Lab directors indicated that the greatest barrier
  to switching platforms is challenge of finding
  reproducibility and compatibility between the
  current vendor and a new vendor
• Most of the lab directors find it difficult to
  change vendors
• A little under one-half are aware of the
  Microarray Quality Consortium (MAQC)
• Many of the lab directors were surprised that the
  MAQC found that different platforms produce very
  comparable results

12
Detailed Findings
13
Respondent Background Information
14
Survey DetailsRespondent Background Information
Most of the lab directors are from the Northeast
or Mid-Atlantic. About 17 of the respondents are
from the Midwest.
Respondent Region of the Country (n54)
Q1. What region of the country are you located in?
15
Survey DetailsRespondent Background Information
About 42 of lab directors reported working in
small academic labs. Twenty-two percent reported
working in large academic labs. Very few
respondents work in industry or hospital labs.
Laboratory Setting (n54)
Other Settings - Government Labs (7) -
Non-profit education institution (1) - NIDCD (1)
Q2. How would you describe your current
laboratory?
16
Survey DetailsRespondent Background Information
On average, about 5 PhDs, 4 lab technicians, and
4 other individuals work in a typical lab.
Lab Members (n54)
Q3. How many of the following work in your lab?
17
Survey DetailsRespondent Background Information
The annual budget level for the labs selected
most frequently was between 250,000 and
500,000. Eleven percent of labs were reported to
have budgets over 2,000,000.
Laboratory Budget (n54)
Q4. What is the annual budget of your lab?
18
Survey DetailsRespondent Background Information
Almost three-fourths of the lab directors claimed
that the National Institute of Health (NIH) is a
primary source of funding for their laboratory.
Primary Sources of Funding (n54)
Other Sources - FDA (3) - DOD (2) - US Army
(1) - Government (1) - ACS (1) - Donations (1)
Q5. What are your primary sources of funding?
19
Survey DetailsRespondent Background Information
Genetics and genomics were the most commonly
reported core research areas for the lab
directors.
Core Research Area (n54) Core Research Area (n54)
Research Area Frequency of Response
Genetics/Genomics 22
Other 11
Immunology 9
Cancer Research/ Oncology 7
Proteomics 5
Q6. What is your core research area?
20
Current Product Usage
21
Survey DetailsCurrent Product Usage
Almost 90 of lab directors use microarrays for
gene expression analysis. About 40 use them for
genotyping or genomic profiling.
Microarray Uses (n54)
Q7. For which of the following purposes have you
used microarrays?
22
Survey DetailsCurrent Product Usage
Lab directors anticipate a wide variety of other
uses for microarrays in the future diagnostics
being mentioned most frequently. On average, labs
have 1 microarray instrument, use 15 microarrays
per month, and have a budget of 84,000 for
microarrays.
Microarray Instruments per Lab Mean 1.2
Range 0-6
Anticipated Future Uses of Microarrays (n54) Anticipated Future Uses of Microarrays (n54)
Uses Frequency of Response
Other 22
Diagnostics 17
Genetics/Genomics 9
Proteomics 6
No Other Use 6
Prognostics 4
Microarrays Used per Month Mean 14.8 Range
0-200
Microarray Budget Mean 84,070 Range
0-1,000,000
Q8. In what other areas of research do you see
microarrays being used in the future? Q9. How
many microarray instruments do you have in your
lab? Q10. How many microarrays do you use in a
typical month? Q11. What is the typical annual
budget of your lab for microarrays and microarray
instruments?
23
Survey DetailsCurrent Product Usage
About one-third of the lab directors indicated
that they purchase microarrays quarterly. Very
few purchase them weekly.
Frequency of Microarray Purchases (n54)
Other Frequencies -As needed (4) -Each year (2)
Q12. How often do you typically order microarrays?
24
Survey DetailsCurrent Product Usage
Many of the lab directors stated that they do not
purchase microarray scanners. For those who do
purchase them, the most frequent time period was
every 3 years.
Frequency of Microarray Scanner Purchases (n54)
Other Frequencies - None or N/A (8) - Use core
facility (4) - As needed (3) - 5 years (2)
Q13. How often do you typically buy microarray
scanners?
25
Survey DetailsCurrent Product Usage
Almost half of the lab directors reported that
microarray analysis takes place in-house.
Location of Microarray Analyses (n54)
Other Locations -In the lab of collaborators (3)
Q14. Please select the location where your
analyses of microarrays take place.
26
Survey DetailsCurrent Product Usage
Sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility are
the 3 most important factors when making a
purchasing decision for microarrays.
Mean Rating
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.2
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.1
Importance of Factors in Purchasing
Decision (n54)
Q15. Using a scale from 1 to 5, please rate the
following parameters based on their importance
level in making a purchasing decision. 1Not at
all important and 5Very important
27
Perceptions toward Manufacturers
28
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
The most frequently selected other lab
technologies were PCR or real-time PCR. DNA
sequencing was also selected by more than half of
the lab directors as another lab technology they
are currently using.
Other Lab Technologies (n54)
PCR Instruments - Applied Biosystems (ABI)
(18) - Biorad (5)
HPLC/UHPLC Instruments - Pharmacia LKBC (1) -
Agilent (1) - Varian (1) - Waters (1)
Other Instruments - Micro-plate readers -
Luminex multiplexing - Molecular and cellular
biology techniques, - Voyager Maldi-TOF - CLIA
certified diagnostics sample processing - 2D gel
electrophoresis
Q16. What technologies beside microarrays are you
currently using in the laboratory? Please select
all that apply.
29
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Applied Biosystems was chosen most frequently as
a mass spectrometry provider.
Mass Spectrometry Provider (n20)
Specific Instruments Applied Biosystems-
Voyager, API 3000/4000, 4800 Maldi TOF Other-
PE-TOF, Intertec 4.0, Ciphergen Seldi,
Beckman Thermo Electron- ICQ, LCQ/LTQ Agilent-
Maldi-TOF, 1100 LC-MS/GC-MS Bruker- FT-ICR, Ion
Trap Waters- Qtof-2 Varian- N/A
Q17. What mass spectrometry provider are you
currently using?
30
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
70 of the respondents reported using Applied
Biosystems as a provider of sequencing technology.
Sequencing Technology Providers (n30)
Applied Biosystems Instruments - 7900 - 3770 -
Voyager - 3730 - ABI 3710
Other Instruments - 454 - Central facility
Amersham (GE) Instruments - Abtech 7.0
Q20. From what provider are you purchasing
sequencing technology? Please select all that
apply.
31
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Half of the lab directors indicated that they use
DNA sequencing for re-sequencing and half
reported using DNA sequencing for gene
expression. None reported using DNA sequencing
for forensics or digital karyotyping
DNA Sequencing Applications (n30) DNA Sequencing Applications (n30)
Application Frequency of Response
Re-Sequencing 50
Gene Expression 50
De novo Sequencing 47
mRNA Expression 40
Protein Expression 30
High Throughput Genotyping 20
Biomarker Discovery 20
CHIP 13
Other 10
Whole Genome Sequencing (Shotgun) 7
Diagnostics 7
Forensics 0
Digital Karyotyping 0
Q21. For which of the following applications are
you currently using DNA sequencing?
32
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Of those who had a preference, most lab directors
reported that Agencourt (Applied Biosystems) has
the best technology for next-generation
sequencing.
Best Next-Generation Sequencing Technology
Provider (n30)
Other Providers - Unknown (7)
Q22. Who do you believe has the best technology
for next generation sequencing?
33
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Lab directors stated that Applied Biosystems has
the best next-generation sequencing technology
for many reasons including its reputation as an
industry leader.
Reasons for Choice of Best Next-Generation
Sequencing Technology Provider (n54)
Applied Biosystems 454 Roche/CuraGen Pacific Biosciences Solexa
More experience Fast Cutting edge Cost
Reliable Convenient Flexibility
Best infrastructure Accurate
Reputation Do a good job
Reproducible results
Versatile equipment
Industry leader
Good value
Technology easy to use
User friendly
Good read length
Q23. Please explain.
34
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Read length was chosen most frequently as an
important factor in evaluating next-generation
sequencing technology. About two-thirds of the
lab directors reported that sensitivity also is
an important factor.
Most Important Factors in Evaluating
Next-Generation Sequencing Technology (n30)
Q24. What factors are most important in
evaluating next generation sequencing technology?
35
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
About two-thirds of the respondents selected
Affymetrix as the company from which they
currently purchase genome testing products. 28
indicated that genome testing products are made
in-house.
Usage of Providers for Genome Testing
Products (n54)
of Arrays Made In-House 40
Q25. Please select each company from which you
currently purchase genome testing products. Q26.
Please estimate the percentage of your arrays
that are made on site.
36
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Applied Biosystems was rated the highest in
overall impression among lab directors. Illumina
received the lowest mean rating.
Overall Impressions of Companies -(1Best Impression and 5Worst Impression)- (n54) Overall Impressions of Companies -(1Best Impression and 5Worst Impression)- (n54)
Company Mean Ranking
Applied Biosystems 2.20
Affymetrix 2.24
Agilent Technologies 3.09
GE Healthcare 3.65
Illumina 3.81
Q27. What is your overall impression of the
following companies? Please rank on a scale from
1 to 5 where 1Best Overall Impression and
5Worst Overall Impression.
37
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Many of the lab directors have had limited
experience with some of the manufacturers.
Customer service was a very important factor in
how they rated the manufacturers
Reasons for Ranking Frequency
Limited experience with the companies 11
Customer Service 8
Product Quality 6
Experience with the manufacturer 5
Reputation of Manufacturer 5
Reproducibility 4
Cost 4
Q28. Please explain the rationale behind your
ranking.
38
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
About half of the respondents indicated that they
have used human gene expression arrays made by
Affymetrix. The most frequently used specific
array is the U133 human gene expression analysis
array.
Affymetrix Arrays Used (n54) Affymetrix Arrays Used (n54) Affymetrix Arrays Used (n54)
Array Type Selected Specific Array
DNA Analysis Arrays 39 500K (2), 10K, 22K, 100K, mapping 2.0 array, yeast genome tiled array, gene chips, various
Gene Expression Analysis Arrays Gene Expression Analysis Arrays Gene Expression Analysis Arrays
Human 50 Human genome U133 (6), whole genome (2), 22K genes, gene 110, oligo array, human tiling 1.0 array set, U95, various
Mouse 39 430 (3), cytokine expression, various
Rat 15 2.0, taxogenomics array
Other Organisms 11 yeast-Sacchmycesie (2), cerevisiae, c elegans, zebrafish, vibrio cholerae
Q29. Which type of Affymetrix arrays have you
used? Please select all that apply.
39
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Very few have used genome expression analysis
arrays for other organisms.
Affymetrix Arrays Used (n54) Affymetrix Arrays Used (n54) Affymetrix Arrays Used (n54)
Array Type Selected Specific Array
Genome Expression Analysis Arrays Genome Expression Analysis Arrays Genome Expression Analysis Arrays
Human 20 G110, Encode arrays (2)
Mouse 15 430 2.0, various
Other Organisms 6 Mtb
Other Array Types Other Array Types Other Array Types
Transcript Expression Arrays (Exon Arrays) 13
Other 11 Never used Affymetrix, Human mapping 10k
Q29. Which type of Affymetrix arrays have you
used? Please select all that apply.
40
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Illumina arrays are not used as frequently as
Affymetrix arrays. (Many indicated they have
never used Illumina arrays).
Illumina Arrays Used (n54) Illumina Arrays Used (n54)
Array Type Selected
Genotyping Arrays Genotyping Arrays
Sentrix HumanHap550 4
Sentrix HumanHap300 2
Sentrix Human-1 Genotyping 4
Genotyping Linkage IVb 0
Genotyping MHC Panel Set 4
Mouse Low Density (LD) Linkage 4
Mouse Medium Density (MD) Linkage 2
Cancer SNP Panel 7
DNA Test Panel 6
Other Illumina Arrays Other Illumina Arrays
Other 0
Q30. Which type of Illumina arrays have you used?
Please select all that apply.
41
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Of the Illumina arrays, the Human Sampler Gene
Expression Array was selected most frequently.
None of the lab directors reported using the
MouseRef-8 expression array.
Illumina Arrays Used (n54) Illumina Arrays Used (n54)
Array Type Selected
Gene Expression (Sentrix) Arrays Gene Expression (Sentrix) Arrays
Human-6 Expression 7
HumanRef-8 9
Human Sampler Arrays 11
Mouse-6Arrays 2
MouseRef-8 Expression 0
Q30. Which type of Illumina arrays have you used?
Please select all that apply.
42
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Affymetrix received the highest mean rating for
product quality. Preferences between the other
companies were not very apparent.
Manufacturer Ratings for Product Quality (n54)
Mean Rating
4.0
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.1
Q31. Please rate each of the following
manufacturers on overall microarray product
quality using a 1-5 scale where 1Poor Quality
and 5High Quality.
43
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Product quality ratings were based on limited
experience with the manufacturers. Ratings were
frequently influenced by the opinions of
colleagues of the lab directors.
Comments on Product Quality Rating Comments on Product Quality Rating
Comment Frequency
Limited experience with some of the manufacturers 19
Opinions of colleagues 7
Reproducibility 5
Specificity/Accuracy 4
Q32. Please comment on your rating above.
44
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Affymetrix received the highest mean rating of
3.9 for the quality of their sales support.
Manufacturer Ratings for Quality of Sales
Support (n54)
Mean Rating
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.3
Q33. Please rate each of the following
manufacturers on quality of sales support using a
1-5 scale where 1Poor Quality and 5High Quality.
45
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Lab directors rated Affymetrix most favorably for
their breadth of overall microarray product
offerings. Illumina received the lowest mean
rating of 3.3.
Manufacturer Ratings for Breadth of Microarray
Product Offerings (n54)
Mean Rating
4.2
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
Q35. Please rate each of the following
manufacturers on breadth of overall microarray
product offerings using a 1-5 scale where 1Poor
Quality and 5High Quality.
46
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Affymetrix also was rated highest for the overall
quality of their DNA analysis arrays.
Distinctions among the other manufacturers were
minimal.
Manufacturer Ratings for Overall Quality of DNA
Analysis Arrays (n54)
Mean Rating
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.1
Q37. Please rate each of the following
manufacturers on overall quality of DNA analysis
arrays using a 1-5 scale where 1Poor Quality and
5High Quality.
47
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Lab directors indicated that they prefer the
overall quality of Affymetrix gene expression
arrays.
Manufacturer Ratings for Overall Quality of Gene
Expression Arrays (n54)
Mean Rating
4.2
3.7
3.6
3.4
3.2
Q38. Please rate each of the following
manufacturers on overall quality of gene
expression arrays using a 1-5 scale where 1Poor
Quality and 5High Quality.
48
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
Lab directors rated all of the manufacturers
highly except for Illumina. The highest rated
products were the sequencing arrays by Applied
Biosystems and the U133 arrays by Affymetrix.
Manufacturer Product Ratings (n54) Manufacturer Product Ratings (n54) Manufacturer Product Ratings (n54)
Manufacturer Product Mean Rating
Affymetrix U133 4.6
Affymetrix Unspecified Gene Expression Arrays 4.4
Affymetrix Unspecified Microarrays 3.9
Agilent Unspecified Gene Expression Arrays 4.3
Agilent Human 1A 4.0
Applied Biosystems Sequencing Arrays 4.8
Applied Biosystems Real time PCR 4.5
Illumina Unspecified Gene Expression Arrays 2.7
Q39. For each manufacturer listed, please
indicate which products you have used and please
rate your overall impression of the product on a
scale of 1 to 5 where 1Very Negative and 5Very
Positive.
49
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
The most frequently reported strength of
Affymetrix arrays was their reputation as an
industry leader and experience in the microarray
market. The high cost of their microarrays was
the most commonly reported weakness and area for
improvement for Affymetrix products.
Affymetrix Products (Most Frequent Responses) (n54) Affymetrix Products (Most Frequent Responses) (n54) Affymetrix Products (Most Frequent Responses) (n54)
Strengths Weaknesses Areas for Improvement
Reputation and experience in the market (7) High cost (16) Reduce the cost (14)
Reproducibility (5) Poor customer support/sales support (6) Better customer support (5)
Breadth of products (4) Sensitivity (4) Improve sensitivity (4)
Reliability (3) Short probe length (3) Customize products (2)
Quality of products (3) Poor quality (2) Eliminate MM probes (2)
Price (2) Better quality of products (2)
Availability (2)
Sensitivity (2)
Ease of use (2)
Q40. What are the major strengths and weaknesses
of Affymetrix products? Q41. What do you believe
are key areas for improvement for Affymetrix?
50
Survey DetailsPerceptions toward Manufacturers
The low price of Illumina products was the most
frequently cited strength. Lab directors
indicated that Illumina needs a greater breadth
of products from which to select.
Illumina Products (n24) Illumina Products (n24) Illumina Products (n24)
Strengths Weaknesses Areas for Improvement
Low price (6) Availability/need more products (4) Range of products/reputation (4)
Bead chip technology (2) Expensive (3) Customer support (3)
Innovative/a different technology (2) Sensitivity (3) Sensitivity (3)
Flexibility (2) Quality (2) Cost (2)
30 of the respondents were unfamiliar with
Illumina products
Q42. What are the major strengths and weaknesses
of Illumina products? Q43. What do you believe
are key areas for improvement for Illumina?
51
Reason for Recent Market Shift
52
Survey DetailsReason for Recent Market Shift
Almost half of the lab directors indicated that
their use of microarrays had increased over the
past year. Very few reported decreases in
microarray use. A common reason for the overall
increase was more funding for microarray use now
than in the previous year.
Use of Microarrays over Past Year (n54)
Reasons for increase - Funding - Expansion of
proteomics - Growing research needs - New array
technology available - More projects and
studies - Introduction of CHIP-chip
Mean Increase 48
Reasons for decrease - Diminished budget - Poor
results (poor reproducibility) - Research focus
has changed - Studies coming to an end
Mean Decrease 38
Q44. How has your use of microarray systems
changed over the past year? Q45. Please explain
why your use of microarray systems has changed
over this time period.
53
Survey DetailsReason for Recent Market Shift
On average, the cost of microarrays reportedly
has decreased by approximately 100 in the last
year.
Prices of Microarrays (n54)
Q46. Please indicate the average price for a
microarray at present? Q47. Please indicate the
average price for a microarray one year ago?
54
Survey DetailsReason for Recent Market Shift
More than half of the lab directors stated that
they are receiving discounts on microarrays. 48
indicated that they have switched vendors based
on the price of microarrays.
Percentage Receiving Discounts on
Microarrays (n54)
Percentage Who Switched Vendors Based on
Price (n54)
Q48. Are you currently receiving a discount off
list price on your microarrays? Q49. Have you or
would you switch vendors based on price?
55
Survey DetailsReason for Recent Market Shift
Lab directors indicated that the greatest barrier
to switching platforms is the challenge of
finding reproducibility and compatibility between
the current vendor and a new vendor.
Barriers to Switching Platform Vendors (n54) Barriers to Switching Platform Vendors (n54)
Barriers Response Frequency
Compatibility or reproducibility between vendors 16
Continuity of old projects already existing on one platform 4
Cost 4
Having to learn a new system 3
Sensitivity 2
Q50. What is your greatest barrier to switching
between platform vendors?
56
Survey DetailsReason for Recent Market Shift
Most of the lab directors find it difficult to
change vendors. A little under one-half of them
are aware of the Microarray Quality Consortium
(MAQC).
Ease of Changing Vendors (n54)
Percentage Aware of MAQC (n54)
Mean Rating 2.0
Q51. How easy is it to transfer data from one
vendor to another? Please rate on a scale of 1 to
5 where 1Very difficult, 3Neutral, and 5Very
easy. Q52. Are you aware of the Microarray
Quality Consortium (MAQC) examining differences
in gene expression data between different
platforms?
57
Survey DetailsReason for Recent Market Shift
In general, lab directors reported very mixed
feelings about the MAQC.

• Comments on the results of the MAQC
• Positive reactions
• Surprised to see that different platforms can
  produce comparable results
• This type of analysis is good because it keeps
  people from making outlandish claims
• Microarray platforms matter less
• Very Informative
• Negative Reactions
• There is limited clinical data
• Lack of an unbiased analysis
• Still unsure about cross-platform comparability
• Wrong annotation of probes is very worrying

Q53. Please share some of your thoughts on the
results.
58

• For additional information specific to this
  project, please contact
• Ben Crane
• Analyst, Quantitative Services
• Phone [phone] x228
• benjamin.crane_at_medpanel.com
• For sales and future projects, please contact
• Howard Brick
• Managing Director, Financial Group
• Phone [phone] x323
• howard.brick_at_medpanel.com

MedPanel, Inc., 44 Brattle St., Cambridge, MA
02138 617-661-8080 www.medpanel.com