Why luciferase but not beta-gal or CAT?

Annette C. Hollmann ah690549 at bcm.tmc.edu
Wed Oct 20 12:55:23 EST 1999


In article <380E0089.28B8 at netcomuk.co.uk> beckwith at netcomuk.co.uk writes:
>Annette C. Hollmann wrote:
>> 
>> In article <199910201214.FAA28419 at net.bio.net> tony_shen at 263.net writes:
>> >I wonder why researchers use luciferase but not beta-gal or CAT
>> >for reporter assay nowadays.
>> >Is it because it is more sensitive or accurate?
>> >
>> 
>> It is more sensitive, it has a wider linear range, and it's faster to do.
>> 
>> Annette
>
>
>
>What about a 20min CAT assay?? Lose slightly on sensitivity, but it is
>rapid.
>
>Jason

Luciferase is just as fast or faster:
15 min to prepare lysate, hands-on time maybe 2 minutes
Then add substrate and measure in a luminometer.

CAT assay:
prepare lysate
add substrate
incubate
spot onto TLC plates, run TLC
phosphor-scan TLC plates.

I'd rather do the luciferase assay.


Annette


















More information about the Cellbiol mailing list