STORM (Molecular Dynamics)

mullenlynne at .jsei.ucla.edu mullenlynne at .jsei.ucla.edu
Mon Jan 20 14:31:58 EST 1997


In article <udn2u5n5zy.fsf at kinesin.kaibo1.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, <yokada at kinesin.kaibo1.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes:
> Path: nnrp.info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!mr.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!uwm.edu!news.he.net!nr1.scn.co.jp!news01.so-net.or.jp!sinfony-news01!wnoc-tyo-news!news.nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp!news
> From: Yasushi OKADA <yokada at kinesin.kaibo1.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts
> Subject: STORM (Molecular Dynamics)
> Date: 19 Jan 1997 22:34:25 +0900
> Organization: Network Operation Centre, The University of Tokyo
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <udn2u5n5zy.fsf at kinesin.kaibo1.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: kinesin.kaibo1.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp
> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
> 
> Hi, netters!
> 
> Anybody have experience with STORM (Molecular Dynamics)?
> I would like to hear your opinions on the following two points.
> 
> 1) As an imaging plate reader.  We are now using BAS2000 (Fuji).  The
> sales person told me that STORM is as good as BAS2000 and that you can 
> use the same imaging plate as BAS2000.  Is this correct?
> 
> 2) As an non-RI fluorescence based image analyzer.  The sales person
> told me that their chemifluorescent-based system has the same or
> better sensitivity, linearity, and dynamic range than RI or
> chemiluminescence.  Is this correct?
> 
> And finally, do you consider that this machine is worth its price?
> 
> -- 
>  * Yasushi Okada, MD.           | Email:yokada at m.u-tokyo.ac.jp   *
>  * Dept. Anatomy & Cell Biology | Tel:81-3-3812-2111 ext.3336    *
>  * Univ. Tokyo  JAPAN           | Fax:81-3-5689-4856             *
> 
 For non-RI, you mean nonradioactive, right??? Then I can give you one answer: 

 NO, NO, NO!!!!!! Theoretically, that's impossible.
	I used the STORM and sent it back for the less expensive Fluorimager, 
which is worth every penny. The Fluorimager has much better optics. The optics 
are not that great on the STORM, plus one of the components makes a sound 
reminiscent of a washing machine, which, I'm sure, is very expensive to 
replace when it finally goes. The price tag (American $80,000) was too much 
for what they promised. And, boy, did they promise a lot.
	I would talk to their technical support department if you can, because 
they have a more realistic idea of what can and can't be done on this machine. 
The salespeople tend to exaggerate profusely.

	Lynne Mullen
	UCLA Macular Center




More information about the Methods mailing list