David John Thornley
djt at doc.ic.ac.uk
Thu Mar 2 10:35:58 EST 1995
In article <3j1gl8$c17 at quandong.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, Ian Lyons
<ilyons at biochem.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
> mkennedy at chmeds.ac.nz (Martin Kennedy) wrote:
> > I believe agar works quite well for DNA gels (though I've never been
> > driven to try it).
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> G'day Martin
> I tried it after a discussion led to a bet. Separated the DNA OK, but
> in there fluoresces under uv, and it makes the DNA bloody hard to see!
> It was decided I lost the bet on a technicality, but I was robbed:
> the DNA separated.
> Ian Lyons (ilyons at biochem.adelaide.edu.au)
Perhaps you could image the gel w/o the DNA (scan it with a CCD camera,)
then run the DNA and re-image it. Subtract one from the other, and there
is no obvious reason for you not to see the DNA. Clearly, the exposure of
the two images may vary, but it would be a simple matter to subtract some
multiple of the "blank" image from the signal image, and vary the
amplification factor until the DNA signal leaps out at you.
I will happily throw the software together if you choose to try this.
More information about the Bioforum