Stephen R. Lasky wrote:
>> In article <49l20s$bq at mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez008413 at bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu> (Gabriel Romero) wrote:
>> > I'm about to start gene expression studies at the transcription level but
> RT-PCR is much more sensitive, faster, requires less RNA, and is easy to
> do. It is, however, more difficult to quantitate. You also need to be
> able to design good primers (which is usually not too much of a problem).
I would agree that RT-PCR is more sensitive and requires less RNA, but I'm not
sure it's harder to quantitate. If you want a reasonably accurate quantitation I
would recommend RT-PCR (or RNase Protection)....if all you need is a yes/no
answer to whether it's expressed I would try Northerns first....but if your
message isn't very abundant, you might need to use RT-PCR eventually anyway.
Dr. Simon Dawson TEL:+44 (0)115 9249924 ex. 44789
Dept. of Biochemistry FAX:+44 (0)115 9422225
Queens Medical Centre Email:Simon.Dawson at .nott.ac.uk
Clifton Boulevard http://www.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk/~mbzspd/Simon.html
U.K. "Back off man, I'm a scientist!" - Bill Murray.