IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

DIG vs 35S for in situ hybridization

Gene Huh gshuh at garnet.berkeley.edu
Thu Oct 17 19:51:15 EST 1996

In article <3264B583.44D8 at alf.biochem.mpg.de>, Gabriele Kerber
<kerber at alf.biochem.mpg.de> wrote:

# Ms. K.K. Martin wrote:
# > 
# > I have used both 35S and DIG for ISHH.  I far prefer DIG and will never,
# > ever use 35S again.  DIG is easier, safer, faster (results in hours rather
# > than days or weeks you get good spatial localisation and, best
# > of all, you avoid all that nasty paperwork associated with keeping track
# > of your radioactive waste.  Boehringer Mannheim have very helpful manuals
# > for using DIG in ISHH.  Good luck.
# DIG is wonderful for IHS with riboprobes. But if you want to use 
# oligonucleotides, you will probably have a lot of problems with 
# DIG. With oligos it´s better to use 35S or even 32P.
# Gabriele

Is there a published side by side comparison of 35-S vs. DIG in the
literature?  I have the impression, from ISHers I've talked to, that 35-S
ISH is considerably more sensitive than DIG.  However, I have no reference
for this claim.

Gene S. Huh, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
Life Sciences Addition, Room 221
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, California   94720-3200

More information about the Methods mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net