DNA purification from agarose gels

Mary Ann Cushman mac at soilwater.agr.okstate.edu
Sat Aug 5 15:18:35 EST 1995

gen126 at abdn.ac.uk (f.r.byrne) wrote:
>Tim (tkuwada at neuron.uchc.edu) wrote:
>: In article <bio.tamu.edu-2906951005260001 at ricelab-centris650.tamu.edu>
>: bio.tamu.edu writes:
>: >I am interested in what other people think about Qiagens new Qiaquick
>: >columns compared to Promega's wizard PCR preps.  Has anybody done a direct
>: >comparison of these two kits for purification of DNA from gels?
>: We have not used the Qiagen kit but have had poor yields with the
>: Promega kit.
>: When we have attempted to purify plasmids (>3kb) with the Promega kit
>: we have consistently
>: recovered a 1.5kb.  All of our reagents have been filtered, thus it is
>: unlikely 
>: that this a contaminating band.  To date we have 0% yield of the
>: desired DNA.  
>: and
>: I would be interested in hearing from anyone else who has had similar
>: problems.   
>: t.kuwada at neuron.uchc.edu
>I've always liked the bio rad prep a gene kit - never had any problems 
>isolating from gelas although I prefer promegas for cleaning up
>solutions. We've messed aruhnd with this a lot in our lab -
>basic message is prepaa gene gfor gels, magic clean for all others
>Fergus Byrne
>Aberdeen University
> The core facility at our university has compared Qiaquick, Wizard,
Gene Clean, etc. for the purposes of cycle sequencing gel-purified
DNAs on an automated sequencing apparatus and found Qiaquick to give consistently the best results. I use it a lot too, and prefer it as
well for preparing DNAs for ligation. Yields have been in the 80%
range in most cases.

Mary Ann Cushman
Oklahoma State University

More information about the Methods mailing list