advice on phosphorimager purchase

Ross Thomas Ross.Thomas at med.monash.edu.au
Mon Nov 28 20:42:51 EST 1994


> 	Actually, I believe that the most sensitive screen chemistry is 
> that used in the Fuji instrument (they in fact hold the patent, and have 
> only allowed other companies to use less sensitive versions).  Be that as 
> it may, in our trials each of the machines had individual advantages.  
> The biorad was the only one which can do chemiluminesance (sp?), but it 
> doesn't do it very well (much less sensitive than film).  The Fuji was 
> the easiest to operate and had a larger screen size for the price range 
> than the other two, but had the least 'flexibility' in parameters.  The 
> MD machine was harder to use than the Fuji, but had the flexibilty of the 
> Bio-Rad without the really clumsy screen cassette system it suffers from.
> 	If you really want a comprehensive overview of user opinions I 
> would search the archives of this newsgroup for 'phosphoimager'...this 
> will return quite a list of postings, many of which i found educational 
> during our deliberations over which system to get.
>  =========================================
>  John Brunstein               No, I DON'T have
> Grad student                  a nifty sig file......
> UBC Biochemistry
> ==========================================
> 
Thought I might throw my two cents worth in here.
We have a Fuji BAS1000 machine and i have also used Molecular Dynamics.
The Fuji is certainly easy to use and file sizes are nice and small making
for easy archiving (on optical disks).  However this system has two major
flaws as far as I'm concerned.
1) Resolution is very poor (reflected by small file size) resulting in images
of lesser quality than film (not publishable in most cases) even when printed
on professional image printer (Pictrograph).  This means that i usually have to
obtain both film and phopho images each time.
2) The screens are very sensitive to degradation (we think maybe from SDS
leakage from sealed Northerns etc).  This has meant for us that we double bag
all filters -resulting in further reduction in resolution.  Also, the damaged screens,
although still usable, result in uneven image intensity and cannot be
used for quantitation.
The Molecular dynamics machine I've used has beautiful resolution (better than
film in my opinion) and more software features.  Files are really large though
if your scans are anything but tiny and may be a problem if you don't have access to
some kind of networked archive.
Hope this may help
Ross

Ross.Thomas at med.monash.edu.au




More information about the Methods mailing list