Metaphor agarose summary

HYNEK WICHTERLE jpalek at opal.tufts.edu
Fri Apr 22 15:20:00 EST 1994


In article <0097D320.B882C0A0.4434 at umbsky.cc.umb.edu>, 4700gbera at UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU writes...
>Hi folks!
> 
>A few weeks back I asked how people liked Metaphor Agarose from FMC for 
>separation of small DNA fragments. The responses were varied, 
>some people liked it, some didn't. The final tally:
>4 people thought it was wonderful, and 3 thought it wasn't very good at all. 
>
>Another poster suggested I try Nusieve 3:1, also by FMC. I did, and
>it  worked wonderfully, so I've decided not to bother trying Metaphor. 
>  
>Gina Berardesco
>4700gbera at umbsky.cc.umb.edu
>Univ. Massachusetts, Boston


	Until now i was using only Wide Range Agarose (WRA) (Sigma) for 
high percentage, high resolution gels. I can't compare the resolution of 
this gel with FMC's gels, but for my purposes was sufficient.
 	I had different kind of troubles, using this agarose. Whenever 
i prepared 3% WRA gel, i found it quite fragile. This agarose has an 
advantage in a very low viscosity when is melted (it avoids trapping air 
bubbles in higher percentage gels, which occures when using normal 
agaroses), but the gel is not very firm and so you have to treat it very 
carefully.

	I've got over this disadvantage simply by mixing the WRA with 
the normal agarose - it results in very good quality gels (a good resolution
and very easy to pour and handle)

 final %     norm.agarose     WRA

  3%          1-2%            2-1%
  4%          1-2%            3-2%
  5%          1-1.5%          4-3.5%


	I have to mention again, that i didn't compare the resolution of 
these gels with any other type of agarose. May be the FMC's gels are firm 
and have a better resolution. 


Hynek Wichterle
jpalek at opal.tufts.edu                                                




More information about the Methods mailing list