CsCl vs column kits

Dennis Templeton djt2 at po.cwru.edu
Tue Apr 4 17:19:40 EST 1995


In article <3lfheq$jq6 at netnews.upenn.edu>, smoore at mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Sean David Moore) wrote:

> This is 1995.
> 
> If you aren't doing some strange prep., use a resin (kit) The DNA is 
> cleaner, and it's faster/easier.
> 

This seems to be a common consensus these days, but I'm sticking to CsCl
at least till the next millenium.

Here is a "survey" I've been doing for the last few years. Whenever I get
a plasmid from some other lab, I make a note of how it was prepared.

This is the correlation I've seen over the years:

                  Good DNA             Lousy DNA
========================================================
CsCl                 20                   3

Resin Kit            15                   18


Note that this is not a full or scientific survey, but there is a distinct
trend for labs that pass along lousy DNA to also use kits. Maybe it has to
do with the inexperience of folks in the lab, i.e. newbies use kits and
also make bad DNA. Maybe, though, even in good hands the kits tend to make
bad DNA.

Anyway, we're happy with our preps. And hey, Sean, I'll match our DNA
purity to your kits any day.

p.s. sorry if this got posted repeatedly, our mailer was choking

Dennis Templeton
Institute of Pathology
CWRU School of Medicine
djt2 at po.cwru.edu



More information about the Methods mailing list