BIONET DNA Sequencing Survey

pmiguel at bilbo.bio.purdue.edu pmiguel at bilbo.bio.purdue.edu
Thu Jun 17 19:23:48 EST 1993


In article <17JUN199308330281 at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu>, broe at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (Bruce Roe) writes:
>
>As for radiolabeled sequencing, early on in the DNA sequencing world
>everyone used Klenow.  With the publication of the Tabor and Richardson
>paper on modified-T7 DNA polymerase and a deal struck with Promega,
>"Sequenase" then came to replace Klenow as the enzyme of choice.
>This is IMHO, mainly due to the work of Carl Fuller at Promega
>who developed and tested the "kit".  It's pretty fool proof and
>works for you're average user.  Almost everyone doing radiolabeled
>sequencing seems to be using Sequenase.  There are some problems with
>compressions (bands in all 4 lanes) but there are work-arounds.
>
  Don't you mean USB, not Promega?  Also, aren't bands in all
four lanes caused by enzyme "fall-off" (which does tend to be
caused by sequence secondary structure, just like compression)?



More information about the Methods mailing list