Table of Contents

1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SCOPE

METHODOLOGY

OUTLINE

2: SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ LABS

Table 2-1: Survey Respondents by Region (USA, ROW, Europe, Total)

Figure 2-1: Survey Respondents by Region

Figure 2-2: World Distribution of Survey Respondents

INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ LABS

Figure 2-3: Primary Industry/ Segment Labs Belong To

LABORATORY FUNCTION OF RESPONDENTS’ LABS

Figure 2-4: Respondents by Function (Research, Service provider (external), Core lab / shared facility, Diagnostic services / products)

DISTRIBUTION BY NUMBER OF SEQUENCERS

Total Numbers of Systems in Labs

Figure 2-5: Distribution by Sequencers in Lab

Numbers of 2nd- and 3rd Generation Systems

Figure 2-6: Number of Next-Generation Sequencers in Labs

Remaining Non-NGS / Capillary Systems

Figure 2-7: Number of Non-NGS / Capillary Sequencers in Labs

BRAND(S) / TYPES(S) OF SEQUENCERS OWNED

Table 2-2: Brands / Types of Sequencers Owned by All Respondents

Table 2-3: Number of a Given Brand / Type in Labs Owning Type, 2017

Average Number of a Given Sequencer in Labs

Table 2-4: Average Number of a Given Sequencer in Labs Owning Type, 2013

POSITION/ ROLE OF RESPONDENTS

Figure 2-8: Distribution of the Respondents’ Positions in the Labs or Organizations (Lab technician, VP or exec. Management,

Professor/PI, Genetic counselor, Lab manager/director, Research assoc./scientist)

3: SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS

DISTRIBUTION OF SEQUENCER MODELS

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends: Kalorama Survey of Laboratories

Overall Totals

Table 3-1: Sequencer Models in Respondents’ Labs

Installed Base by System Owned

Table 3-2: Installed Base of Labs, by System(s) Owned (# of Systems)

Table 3-3: Installed Base of Labs, by System(s) Owned (% of Systems)

Table 3-4: Cross-Ownership of Sequencing Systems Trend

Table 3-5: Installed Base of Labs, by System(s) Owned (% of Systems)

DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF SEQUENCERS

Table 3-6: Number of Systems in Labs Segmented across Two Dimensions – Number of Next-Generation Systems and Number of Non-

NGS / Capillary Systems

INSTALLED BASE BY REGION

Overall Brand/ Type

Table 3-7: Distribution of Systems by Region (USA, Europe, ROW, Overall)

Table 3-8: Sequencer Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Region (% of Systems; USA, Europe, ROW, Overall)

NEXT-GENERATION SYSTEMS

Table 3-9: NGS Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Region by Percent of Systems (USA, Europe, ROW, Total)

NON-NGS / CAPILLARY SYSTEMS

Table 3-10: Non-NGS / Capillary Systems Models by Region (USA, Europe, ROW, Overall)

INSTALLED BASE BY INDUSTRY SEGMENT

Overall Brand/ Type

Table 3-11: Number of Systems Installed, by Industry / Segment(s)

Brand / Type of Sequencer Systems Installed, by Industry/ Segment, 2017

Table 3-12: Brand / Type of Sequencer Systems Installed, by Industry/ Segment, 2017 (% of Systems)

Comparison to 2013

Table 3-13: Brand / Type of Sequencer Systems Installed, by Industry/ Segment, 2013 (% of Systems)

INSTALLED BASE OF NEXT-GENERATION SYSTEMS

Table 3-14: Installed Base of Next-Generation Systems, Segmented by Industry (Academia, University; Hospital, Medical Center; Independent Reference Lab; Contract Research/ Svcs; Independent Rsch/ Nonprofit; Biotech/ Diagnostics/ Vaccines; Government; Overall)

Table 3-15: Next-Generation Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Industry/ Segment (% of Labs Owning Given Systems) (Academia, University; Hospital, Medical Center; Independent Reference Lab; Contract Research/ Svcs; Independent Rsch/ Nonprofit; Biotech/ Diagnostics/ Vaccines; Government)

Table 3-16: Next-Generation Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Industry/ Segment (% of Total Respondents’ Systems)

INSTALLED BASE BY LABORATORY FUNCTION

Overall Brand/ Type by Laboratory Function

Table 3-17: NGS Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Lab Function (% of Systems) (Research, Service provider (external), Core lab/ shared facility, Diagnostic services/ products)

Brand / Type of Sequencer System Installed, by Lab Function

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends: Kalorama Survey of Laboratories

Table 3-18: Brand / Type of Sequencer System Installed, by Lab Function (% of Systems; Research, Service provider (external), Core lab/ shared facility, Diagnostic services/ products)

NEXT-GENERATION SYSTEMS

Table 3-19: NGS Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Lab Function (% of Labs Owning Given NGS System) (Research, Service provider (external), Core lab/ shared facility, Diagnostic services/ products)

Table 3-20: NGS Models in Respondents’ Labs, by Lab Function (% of All Respondent Systems) (Research, Service provider (external), Core lab/ shared facility, Diagnostic services/ products, Overall)

Figure 3-1: Sequencers per Lab, Average, by Lab Function (Overall; Diagnostic services/ products; Core lab/ shared facility; Service provider (external); Research)

4: SEQUENCER APPLICATIONS, CLINICAL APPLICATIONS, AND USAGE TRENDS

SEQUENCER APPLICATIONS AND USAGE

Applications Run, Overall and by Brand/ Type

Table 4-1: NGS Application Volume by Model (% of Sequencing)

Figure 4-1: Applications by Sequencer Model

LIKELY INCREASES IN APPLICATIONS AND VOLUME

Overall

Table 4-2: Applications Expected to Increase the Most (Resequencing/ amplicon; RNA seq, transcriptomics, gene expr.; Metagenomics; De novo sequencing & whole genome; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; ChIP-seq; Small RNA, micro RNA; Expect mostly remain the same)

Figure 4-2: Applications Expected to Increase the Most (Resequencing/ amplicon; RNA seq, transcriptomics, gene expr.; Metagenomics; De novo sequencing & whole genome; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; ChIP-seq; Small RNA, micro RNA; Expect mostly remain the same)

Applications Expected to Increase the Most Overall

BY BRAND OF NEXT-GENERATION SYSTEM OWNED

Table 4-3: Applications Expected to Increase, Illumina Owners (Resequencing/ targeted; mRNA-seq / transcriptome; de novo/ whole genome; Metagenomics; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; Small/ micro RNA; ChIP-seq)

Table 4-4: Applications Expected to Increase, Pac Bio Owners (Resequencing/ targeted; mRNA-seq / transcriptome; de novo/ whole genome; Metagenomics; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; Small/ micro RNA; ChIP-seq)

Table 4-5: Applications Expected to Increase, Thermo Owners (Resequencing/ targeted; mRNA-seq / transcriptome; de novo/ whole genome; Metagenomics; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; Small/ micro RNA; ChIP-seq)

Table 4-6: Applications Expected to Increase, Non-NGS / Capillary Owners (Resequencing/ targeted; mRNA-seq / transcriptome; de novo/ whole genome; Metagenomics; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; Small/ micro RNA; ChIP-seq)

Table 4-7: Applications Expected to Increase, All Users (Resequencing/ targeted; mRNA-seq / transcriptome; de novo/ whole genome; Metagenomics; Exome; Methylation, other epigenetics; Small/ micro RNA; ChIP-seq)

APPLICATIONS EXPECTED TO INCREASE, BY NGS BRAND OWNED (% OF LABS)

Growth in Sequencing, NGS vs Non-NGS / Capillary Systems

Table 4-8: Expected Growth in Sequencing Volume (% of Labs)

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends: Kalorama Survey of Laboratories

CAPACITY USAGE OF SYSTEMS

Figure 4-3: Avg. Percentage of Systems’ Capacity Used, by Brand

Percentage of Systems’ Capacity Used, by Brand

OUTSOURCING

Table 4-9: Percentage of Sequencing Volume Outsourced

Percentage of Sequencing Volume Outsourced

Table 4-10: Percentage of Sequencing Volume Outsourced, by Region (N. America, Europe, ROW, Overall)

Table 4-11: Reason for Outsourcing

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS

Sequencing of CLIA Regulated Patient Samples

Table 4-12: How Labs Address Sequencing of Regulated Patient Samples (# of Labs)

HOW LABS ADDRESS SEQUENCING OF REGULATED PATIENT SAMPLES

Certification for Regulated Samples

Table 4-13: Labs’ Certification for Regulated Patient Samples

Change in Regulated Samples vs. Non-Regulated Samples

Table 4-14: Distribution of Samples, Est. 2017 (% of Labs)

Table 4-15: Distribution of Samples, Expected 2018 (% of Labs)

Certified Labs

Table 4-16: Volume of Regulated vs. Non-Regulated Samples at Certified Labs, Est. 2017 and Expected 2018 (% of Sequencing; Sample type: Non patient/ human samples; Non CLIA patient/ human sample; CLIA patient samples)

Table 4-17: Volume of Regulated vs. Non-Regulated Samples at Non-Certified Labs, Est. 2017 and Expected 2018 (% of Sequencing; Sample type: Non patient/ human samples; Non CLIA patient/ human sample; CLIA patient samples)

Table 4-18: Distribution of Samples, Est. 2017 (% of Labs) (Non patient/ human samples; Non CLIA patient/ human samples; CLIA patient samples)

Table 4-19: Distribution of Samples, Expected 2018 (% of Labs) (Non patient/ human samples; Non CLIA patient/ human samples; CLIA patient samples)

SEQUENCERS USED OR PLANNED FOR PATIENT/ HUMAN SAMPLES

Regulated Patient/ Human Samples

Table 4-20: Sequencers Most Likely to Be Used for Regulated Patient Samples

Figure 4-4: Sequencers Used for Regulated Patient Samples (% of Systems)

Sequencers Used for Regulated Patient Samples

Table 4-21: Sequencers Likely to Be Used for Regulated Patient Samples (% of Labs)

Figure 4-5: Sequencers Likely to Be Used for Regulated Patient Samples (% of Labs)

DISEASE/ THERAPEUTIC AREAS WHERE SEQUENCING APPLIED

Regulated Patient/ Human Samples

Table 4-22: Regulated Patient/ Human Samples (Rare inherited/ genetic, Cancer, Prenatal, Infectious, Pharmacogenetic, Hematological, Healthy ind’ls)

Table 4-23: Remaining Capillary Systems, How Used (Rare inherited/ genetic, Cancer, Prenatal, Infectious, Pharmacogenetic, Hematological, Healthy individuals)

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends: Kalorama Survey of Laboratories

Non-Regulated Patient/ Human Samples

Table 4-24: Disease Areas Where Sequencing Applied (% of Volume) (Rare inherited/ genetic; Cancer; Pharmacogenetic; Infectious; Autoimmune/ immunology; Neurology; HLA/ MHC/ transplantation; Healthy individuals; Other; Varies, large range)

Table 4-25: Remaining Capillary Systems, Where Used in Non-Regulated Samples (Rare inherited/ genetic; Cancer; Pharmacogenetic; Infectious; Autoimmune/ immunology; Neurology; HLA/ MHC/ transplantation; Healthy individuals; Other; Varies, large range)

Disease Areas Expected to Grow Fastest

Table 4-26: Regulated Sequencing Expected to Grow Fastest (% of Labs) (Rare genetic/ inherited diseases, Cancer, Pharmacogenetics, Infectious, Prenatal)

Table 4-27: Non-Regulated Patient/ Human Sequencing Expected to Grow Fastest Non-CLIA (Cancer, Inherited diseases, Infec./ immunology/ autoimmune, Neurology, Pharmacogenetics, HLA/ MHC/ transplantation, Cardiovascular)

Challenges for Growth of Clinical Sequencing

Table 4-28: Challenges for Growth of Clinical Sequencing

5: PREFERENCES AND EVALUATIONS

KEY CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING SEQUENCERS

Overall

Table 5-1: Most Important Criteria for Sequencer Purchase (cost of system, cost per sample or run, raw accuracy, ease of use user friendliness, flexibility range of apps, throughput, vendor cust svc, specific apps needs, compatibility precedence, software IT, turnaround run time, read length, other)

MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR SEQUENCER PURCHASE

By System

Table 5-2: Most Important Criteria for Purchases, Illumina Owners (cost of system, cost per sample or run, raw accuracy, ease of use user friendliness, flexibility range of apps, throughput, vendor cust svc, specific apps needs, compatibility precedence, software it, turnaround run time, read length, Other)

Table 5-3: Most Important Criteria for Purchases, Pac Bio Owners (cost of system, cost per sample or run, raw accuracy, ease of use user friendliness, flexibility range of apps, throughput, vendor cust svc, specific apps needs, compatibility precedence, software it, turnaround run time, read length, Other)

Table 5-4: Most Important Criteria for Purchase, Thermo Fisher Owners (cost of system, cost per sample or run, raw accuracy, ease of use user friendliness, flexibility range of apps, throughput, vendor cust svc, specific apps needs, compatibility precedence, software it, turnaround run time, read length, Other)

Table 5-5: Most Important Criteria for Purchase, Capillary Owners (cost of system, cost per sample or run, raw accuracy, ease of use user friendliness, flexibility range of apps, throughput, vendor cust svc, specific apps needs, compatibility precedence, software it, turnaround run time, read length, Other)

Table 5-6: Most Important Criteria for Purchase, Overall NGS Owners (cost of system, cost per sample or run, raw accuracy, ease of use user friendliness, flexibility range of apps, throughput, vendor cust svc, specific apps needs, compatibility precedence, software it, turnaround run time, read length, Other)

EVALUATIONS OF SEQUENCERS

Illumina -Comments

Oxford Nanopore -Comments

Pacific Biosciences -Comments

Next-Generation Sequencing Trends: Kalorama Survey of Laboratories

CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS

Table 5-7: Feature Most Wanted to Change or Improve (Lower sequencing cost, Cheaper libr prep, Automate/ shorten library prep, Longer reads, Robustness/ reliability of systems, Improve/ simplify data analysis, Choice of fewer lanes per run, Enable tracking barcodes etc, Flexibility for diff apps, Better customer support, Shorter run time, More flexible/ adaptable software)

BOTTLENECKS IN PROCESS

Table 5-8: Bottlenecks (Data analysis/ interpretation, Sequencer run time, Library preparation, Reporting, Waiting to fill flow cells)

6: FUTURE PURCHASE PLANS

TIME FRAME OF PURCHASE PLANS

Overall

Table 6-1: Time Frame for Future Purchase (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, Planned but uncertain time frame, No plan)

Figure 6-1: Time Frame of the Purchases Planned (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, Planned but uncertain time frame, No plan)

By Brand/ Type Owned

Table 6-2: Time Frame for Future Purchase, by Brand Owned (# of Labs) (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, Planned but uncertain time frame, No plan)

By Laboratory Function

Table 6-3: Time Frame for Future Purchase by Type of Lab (Overall, Research, Service provider (ext), Core lab/ shared, Diagnostic svcs/ prod) (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, Planned but uncertain time frame, No plan)

Purchase Plan Time Frame by Region

Table 6-4: Time Frame for Future Purchase, by Region (% of Labs) (USA, Europe, ROW) (0-6 months, 7-12 months, 1-2 years, Planned but uncertain time frame, No plan)

SYSTEMS LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PURCHASE

Overall

Table 6-5: Sequencer Models Likely to Be Considered

Sequencer Models Likely to Be Considered

Purchase Decision Preference by Brand/ Type Owned

Table 6-6: Sequencer Models Likely to Be Considered, by Brand/Type Owned (% of Labs)

By Industry / Segment

Table 6-7: Sequencer Models Likely to Be Considered, by Industry/Segment Owned (% of Labs)

By Laboratory Function

Table 6-8: Sequencer Models Likely to Be Considered, by Lab Function (% of Labs) (Research, Service provider (ext), Core lab, Diagnostics/ clinical, Overall)

By Region

Table 6-9: Sequencer Models Likely to Be Considered, by Region (% of Labs) (USA, Europe, ROW, Overall)