Millipore "EXPIDITE" vs APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS 392

John E. Fox altabios at bham.ac.uk
Thu Jun 2 09:49:18 EST 1994


In article <2sjrkf$ofi at charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, rsaldanh at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Roland J Saldanha) says:
>
>
>We are considering buying an oligonucleotide synthesizer.  The Millipore 
>expedite seems to have several advantages ( very low solvent consumption 
>significantly reducing synthesis $$, low cycle times and true two column 
>independance etc) when compared to the ABS 392.  I would appreciate input from 
>owners/operators of this machine.  I realise ABI has very deep market 
>penentration and appears to be the "industry standard"  I would like to know if
>this is an outmoded standard and if in fact the Millipore EXPEDITE is truly a 
>better machine or mere marketing hype.  Input from people who have had the 
>opportunity to work on both systems would be most appreciated.
>
>Thank you
>
>Roland Saldanha


I have one Expedite machine. It works very well, embarassingly fast. It cuts the solvent consumption
by about half, compared to my existing machines and is a fast as they say, about 17 bases
an hour for the 0.2 micro mole scale.
The Expedite will work with either standard 
amidites or the Expedite versions. The Expedite fits onto a PC, or it can work alone. I edit
my sequences on a data base, (Superbase) and then export them to the Expedite.
The main advantage of the Expedite is the shape of the column. It is tall and slim with low
spare volume and is much quicker to wash than the shorter fatter columns.
The columns are truely independent although I haven't tried the extremes of scales yet.



More information about the Methods mailing list