Tracy Aquilla aquilla at
Fri Feb 24 08:07:46 EST 1995

In Article <d.j.evans-2202951710160001 at>,
d.j.evans at (David J. Evans) wrote:
>Is anybody willing to comment on the individual or comparative merits of
>the Molecular Dynamics and Biorad phosphoimagers ?
>We've tried both.  The MD hardware is less up to date than the Biorad, but
>the software that comes with the latter seems to be not as good as that
>from MD.  Can users confirm this, or correct me if I'm wrong ?
>We intend to make a purchase in the next couple of weeks.
>Responses here, or by e-mail if possible.
>Thanks in advance.
>David J. Evans
>Tel. (44) 01734 318893
>Fax. (44) 01734 750140
>e-mail d.j.evans at

I haven't used the MD imager, but I use the BioRad GS250 and I really like
it. From what I understand, one major difference between the two is the
screen chemistry. The BioRad imager is capable of detecting very faint bands
after a long exposure, due to this difference in phosphor screen chemistry.
I don't think this is possible with the MD screens, due to the rate of
spontaneous discharge. I have also successfully used the BioRad screens
optimized for 32P to image chemiluminescent blots. I recommend you search
the archives, there have been many posts on this topic.

More information about the Methods mailing list