DIG vs 35S for in situ hybridization
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.
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