Phosphoimagers vs Instantimager

Graham Atherton grggta at picr.cr.man.ac.uk
Mon Oct 3 03:01:42 EST 1994


I have looked at both of these devices recently. The instantimager seemed
to be far more sensitive (thus quicker), but the machine is tied up while
you are exposing. I tested a CAT assay TLC plate and got a good result in
around 10 min. Similar plates take 4-8hrs exposure to the phoshoimager
plates. For my purposes (14C) the phosphoimager is no quicker than
autoradiography, and the screens are very expensive (approx #1000 sterling).
I believe the phosphoimager is good for what would be long exposures by
autoradiography with 32P.
  The instantimager scores strongly for me in that the output is given
in CPM measured direct from the TLC plate - very fast and accurate.
  Neither machine gives publishable figure quality output - autoradiography
is still king here!
  Given a choice I would get the Instantimager (far cheaper too at #35000
compared with at least #80000 for the phosphoimager - get two 
Instantimagers!
Graham Atherton



More information about the Methods mailing list