Is The NAMs Sector Entering a New Commercial Phase?

Over the past year, several conversations with colleagues focused on the future shape of the rapidly growing NAMs sector. The science continues to advance at a pace. There is now a diverse ecosystem of companies developing organoids, MPS, organ on chip technologies, reconstructed tissues and other advanced complex in vitro models. Many are relatively small businesses built around highly innovative science. If you look at resources such as the 3Rs Collaborative MPS Hub (https://www.3rc.org/mps/tech-hub), the number of technology providers becomes readily apparent from this industry snapshot. However, developing an innovative technology and building a sustainable commercial business around it are two different challenges. Recent developments suggest that the sector may now be entering a new phase.

Consolidation is Starting

The past two years brought several significant transactions.

• Merck KGaA acquired HUB Organoids, adding its organoid technology, intellectual property and services to Merck's cell culture portfolio.

• Sartorius acquired MatTek and Visikol from BICO for $80 million. This is particularly noteworthy because MatTek is no start up. Founded in 1985, it supplied reconstructed human tissues commercially for decades. MatTek and Visikol together generated approximately $20 million revenue in 2024, with an adjusted EBITDA margin above 20%.

• Bruker took a majority stake in organ on chip specialist MIMETAS, while InSphero expanded through acquisitions including DOPPL and PhenoVista Biosciences.

This week

• SenzaGen announced its acquisition of Alcyomics, and

• Transpharmation acquired OrganoTherapeutics. This is particularly interesting since Transpharmation, with its history in translational in vivo pharmacology, described the acquisition as a first step towards building CRO services incorporating human tissues and systems alongside its established preclinical capabilities.

But Acquisition Is Only One Strategy

The large CROs are also moving in on this space.

Earlier this month I visited Labcorp's Harrogate facility and was shown its new building, which will provide dedicated facilities for its in vitro services. This appears consistent with Labcorp's publicly stated direction. The company describes significant investment in NAM development and validation, encompassing organ on chip MPS, in vitro assays and computational approaches. It also expanded its genetic toxicology laboratories at Harrogate by more than 30%, including capacity for 3D tissues and in vitro methods.

Partnerships may prove just as important as acquisitions. Larger CROs do not necessarily need to own every technology they offer. Charles River Laboratories is developing advanced in vitro capabilities across organoids, MPS and 3D cultures, while Labcorp worked with Predictive Oncology to develop human and rat 3D liver organoid models for drug metabolism and liver toxicity. Inotiv's collaboration with LifeNet Health similarly brings the TruVivo human liver platform into its discovery and translational services. These different approaches allow established CROs to develop capabilities internally or access specialist technologies through collaboration, potentially giving smaller technology developers access to much greater commercial reach.

So perhaps the strategic question for both established CROs and specialist technology companies is becoming buy, build or partner?

Not Everyone Will Make The Transition

There is another side to this developing story.

Newcells Biotech entered administration in February 2026. Its retina business, associated team and intellectual property were subsequently acquired by Axol Bioscience, while its remaining operations ceased. The new startup, Farne Bio (https://farnebio.com) will soon offer the aProximate™ service, and I look forward to seeing them in the market.

Organ on chip company Bi/ond reportedly ceased operations in 2025, as did Systemic Bio, the 3D Systems backed developer of vascularised human tissue models.

This should not be interpreted as a failure of NAMs. Rather, it raises an important commercial question: how many independent technology providers can the market ultimately support?

From Innovation To Commercial Maturity?

Perhaps these apparently different developments are part of the same transition. After a period characterised by extraordinary scientific innovation and the creation of numerous specialist companies, the sector may now be experiencing commercial maturation.

Some businesses own valuable technologies that larger companies want to acquire. Others are combining complementary technologies and services. Major CROs can build capabilities themselves or access specialised technologies through partnerships. Inevitably, some businesses will struggle to achieve sustainable commercial scale.

For pharmaceutical, chemical and other companies buying these services, there may also be advantages to obtaining multiple models, technologies and analytical capabilities through fewer providers.

Therefore, the question is no longer simply whether NAMs will become more widely adopted. It is increasingly what the industry providing those technologies will ultimately look like.

And I suspect we are only beginning to find out!