cycle vs. normal sequencing
nishir at ohsu.edu
Thu Jan 5 12:43:47 EST 1995
In article <mic-2812941448430001 at 220.127.116.11>
mic at nwu.edu (Mic Chaudoir) writes:
> In addition to the comments people have stated before, I would add the
> following remarks:
> Cycle sequencing requirtes the use of P32 (as people have mentioned... you
> can use P33, but it is very pricey). In addition to the greater rad
> hazard from P32, the sequence is also much less readable than S35, IMHO.
> mic at nwu.edu
> "It [PowerPC Mac] won't have any effect at all on Intel machines.
> They will continue to plod along, running the same clunky Windows and wretched DOS drivel they always have. The PPC will affect Intel PCs the same way an SR-71 Blackbird affects a dairy cow."
> Robert Rhode, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Huh? We have used 35S with good results in cycle sequencing, but there
is a problem with "shadow" bands that in some instances make it
difficult to decide which base comes next when you read the autorad.
My res. asst recently directly compared Sequenase with cycle sequencing
using the same primers, source of DNA, label, etc, and we got much
nicer and easier to read sequence from the Sequenase reaction.
Dept. Cell Biology & Anatomy
Oregon Health Sciences University
Portland Oregon 97201
**that's Orygun, NOT Ora-Gone**
More information about the Methods