Lambda libraries

Michael Benedik bchs1b at Elroy.UH.EDU
Wed Oct 14 22:22:09 EST 1992

In article <1992Oct14.100936.121 at>, cytogen at (Martin Kennedy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.100236.90319 at>, mic255z at writes:
>> Dear Netters,
>> I am interested in using a lambda system to do some primary cloning.
>> Does anyone have any thoughts on what system is better ie., what are the
>> relative merits of lambda-ZAP and lambda-DASH compared with EMBL, GEM
>> or gt11 apart from obvious things like unique cloning sites.
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Helen Jost,
>> Department of Microbiology,
>> Monash University.
>I've used lambda ZAP several times, and it works beautifully; its main advantage
>is the "automatic excision" of inserts - ie, you don't have to make a lambda DNA
>prep, and subclone the insert, as addition of a helper phage causes copying of
>the phagemid portion of lambda ZAP which contains the multiple cloning site and
>your insert.  The phagemeid is then recovered as amp resistant colonies that
>contain a Bluescript "subclone"of your lambda insert.  Look at various volumes
>of Methods in Enzymology for good comparisons of lambda vectors.

Followup question for you lambda ZAP guru's out there. What is the efficiency
of excision from lambda zap to release the plasmids. In other words, we often
need to make small genomic libraries (bacteria) in plasmids. I was wondering
if it would make sense to make them in lambda zap (and use the high efficiency
of packaging) and then release the plasmid en masse to get a plasmid library.
I know making a plasmid library is not a big deal, but this would seem
easier. Am I missing something???

 Michael Benedik				INTERNET: Benedik at
 Dept. of Biochemical & Biophysical Sciences	
 University of Houston				BITNET: Benedik at uhou

More information about the Methods mailing list