Problems with new Sequenase?

Ayeda Ayed ayed at
Thu Mar 4 10:08:34 EST 1993

In <1993Mar2.072840.19601 at> VERNON at (vernon) writes:

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

>> In article <C380v2.374 at> miguel at 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.


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

More information about the Methods mailing list