StudiesRestriction Enzymes It is difficult to imagine life in the lab today without the benefit of restriction enzymes. Because they are so ubiquitous, these tools have become indispensable to many scientists even at the same time that they are often taken for granted. To better understand why researchers prefer certain brands and what factors influence their decision, The Science Advisory Board invited over 700 members to participate in a study of restriction enzyme usage. A summary of the results is presented below. While it will come as no surprise to scientists that cloning is the top application for restriction enzymes, significant regional differences for other restriction enzyme-associated applications exist. In particular, study respondents in the Rest of the World (ROW) category (i.e., non-North Americans and non-Europeans), have identified genotyping and sequencing as the second and third, respectively, most common applications of their restriction enzymes. In aggregate, Science Advisory Board members devote 62% of their restriction enzyme usage to cloning and about 11% of their restriction enzyme usage to genotyping. Beyond cloning, academic and industrial respondents use restriction enzymes somewhat differently in terms of their downstream applications. Probe preparation is more common for academic than industrial scientists, and genotyping consumes slightly more restriction enzymes in academic than industrial labs. Of the 33% of study respondents who expect their enzyme usage to increase over the next 12 months, a greater proportion of this growth will occur in mutation analysis, genotyping and sequencing than in cloning, probe preparation, mapping and methylation detection. Collectively, mutation analysis, genotyping and sequencing are among the core techniques utilized by genomic researchers. When assessing restriction enzyme performance, most respondents are reasonably satisfied with their level of enzyme activity, enzyme purity and DNA functionality after digestion. Unit concentration and/or sizing options were more problematic for suppliers; however, for the most part, these features are not as highly valued by researchers. Curiously, study respondents are least satisfied with their restriction enzyme’s unit price (with the exception of Fermentas users). For all suppliers, aside from Invitrogen, however, unit price is also very unimportant to these participants. “Of all the different measures of loyalty, a product recommendation is the most indicative of the intense emotional attachment a customer can have to a particular brand,” states Mike Kibler, Executive Director of The Science Advisory Board. Expressly, when a scientist recommends a product, it means that he or she has tremendous confidence in the value created and delivered by that particular brand. For restriction enzymes, New England Biolab’s users have a very strong sense of identity with this brand. New England Biolabs is the top brand currently used by respondents. Despite this dominance, other brands have strong showings in certain sectors. There appears to be a slight preference by academic scientists for restriction enzymes from Promega over Invitrogen and vice versa for industrial respondents. Restriction enzymes from Roche Applied Science and Fermentas have a solid following in Europe while Promega’s restriction enzymes do comparatively well in the ROW category. ### To find out how your colleagues answered the following SAB Bonus question, please click here “If you were to create an ‘enzyme of the month’ club for your favorite supplier, what would be its key benefits and why would scientists think membership in such a club was a good idea? (For example, the club might offer discounted pricing for monthly orders such as 3000 U of Hind III for the price of 2000 U.)” [ View Current & Future Studies ] [ View Past Studies ] |
|
