which phophoImager?

Rork Kuick ork at umich.edu
Fri Aug 30 12:02:12 EST 1996


In article <504jj9$6oq at news.bu.edu> Riekeltje Koedood,
rkoedood at bio.bu.edu writes:
> We are buying a PhophoImager for our Department and are having
diffictulties
> to decide which (that is, difficulties eaching a consensus). The choice
is
> between the Biorad machine and the Storm from Molecular Dynamics.
> 
> Any opinions on this? Especially useful would be opinions of people who
have
> used both.
Phosphor storage technology:  We are in a similar situation.
We had both demo'd here recently.  Ya gotta do chemiflorecent rather than
chemiluminecent lableling with the Molecular Dynamics box.
For weakly labeled (radioactive) samples in situations where 
quantitation is critical, or if the anticipated use is very high, there
are
reasons to perhaps choose Mol. Dyn. over Biorad, but it is a tough
decision.
(we'd need an extra room for all the "docks" for the biorad system).
Go to the sources!
   You can get them demo'd too (perhaps already have) I'll bet, and both 
companies seem willing to talk your ears off about the tradeoffs involved.
If you can identify a particular detection technique that is most of the
volume, or most critical, it would obviously help in a decision.  For us
it
is P32.  Complexity of images may also be a factor in that one may have 
to consider the software that will be used if the hardware is about an
even
tradeoff, but that seems unlikely.
   Hope I have not made an endorsement.  Fuji makes systems too, in case
you were not aware.  If the critical application is filters with a
billion dots
on them I'd look there carefully too.    Good luck, rork at umich.edu   .

(I do not speak for anyone but myself and have no money to make, etc,
etc, etc,
  I think.   OK, a six-pack would be nice.)



More information about the Methods mailing list