Miniflourometer (SUMMARY)

neale at mbcf.stjude.org neale at mbcf.stjude.org
Wed Mar 31 19:07:02 EST 1993


In article <C3qK0s.KEs at usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jgraham at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (the End) writes:
> At this point, every person with the exception of Steve, who has claimed 
> success with the Hoeffer minifluometer has been using it for quantitation 
> of high complexity genomic DNA.
> 
> All other replies within the 10 responses I have gotten have confirmed the 
> lack of reliability (4) on other DNA samples. The two favorable reposnses
> posted to the net (Terese and Neal) are both refering to plant and 
> bacterial genomic DNA samples. As I said, I can measure Calf Thymus DNA
> as well.
> 
> More replies welcome,
> 
> Jim
> J. Graham



G'day all,

I would definitely say that the machine is unreliable, particularly at
measuring small amounts of DNA purified from gels (ie for probes or ligations).
One tech in the lab swears by the machine, and to be honest, she gets the most
reproducible results with the exception noted above.

We use the "low DNA concentration" buffer for best results at both the high end
of the range and low DNA amounts. WE use it for genomic DNA routinely without
too many problems, but it is the small gel fragments thatr I want to know with
precison.

Our machine was sent back for a circuit board upgrade and bulb replacement at
considerable cost (two-thirds of the original cost) but I have not reall y
noticed any difference.

I always check my purified fragments on mini-gel just to be sure.

Regards,


Geoff




*************************************************************************
Geoffrey Neale Ph.D
neale at mbcf.stjude.org

Dept. of Virology and Molecular Biology
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Memphis, TN
Voice: (901) 522-0400
Fax: (901) 523-2622
*************************************************************************

"Such is life" - Ned Kelly, infamous Australian bushranger before his hanging



More information about the Methods mailing list