Problems with new Sequenase?

Ayeda Ayed ayed at ccu.umanitoba.ca
Thu Mar 4 10:08:34 EST 1993


In <1993Mar2.072840.19601 at gserv1.dl.ac.uk> VERNON at micro.uct.ac.za (vernon) writes:

>> Date:          01 Mar 1993 18:48:38 +0000 (GMT)
>> From:          gchacko%(George at ib.rl.ac.uk W Chacko) magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>> Subject:       RE: Problems with new Sequenase?
>> To:            "bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts mail newsgroup"
>                    <bionet-news at daresbury.ac.uk>
>> Reply-to:      gchacko%(George at ib.rl.ac.uk W Chacko) magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

>> In article <C380v2.374 at mentor.cc.purdue.edu> miguel at aclcb.purdue.edu writes:
>>
>> >  A few people have now written me and the culprit seems to be
>> >some batches of 35S-dATP from Amersham.  I phoned Amersham and they
>> >took the rap.  The batch we have is 9302.  The rep. I talked to seemed
>> >surprised at the batch number -- most of their complaints have been
>> >with 9304.  But they are replacing my mCi with batch 9308.  We'll be
>> >testing it and I'll post results.
>>
>> I'll keep this brief but I was using batch # 9304 too.
>>
>> George
>>
>>

>In follow up to the above topic, we have had similar problems with
>regard to sequencing using Sequenase.  We have tried kits supplied by
>USB and Pharmacia.  We have been using Amersham 35S-dATP batches
>9302, 9304, and 9306 with similar results (faint sequence).

>We look forward to hearing whether batch 9308 works for you.  In the
>meantime we will be contacting Amersham for a credit.

>Vernon



We've also been having trouble with a sequenase batch (we first thought it
sas faulty Sequenase as well).  However,upon trying another batch of 35S-dATP, sequencing was much better (sharp
bands,etc.).  The batch we are using now is 9301.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ayeda Ayed                            
University of Manitoba Chemistry Department
ayed at ccu.umanitoba.ca



More information about the Methods mailing list