purchasing transilluminators-advice sought.

Ned Mantei ned at neuro.biol.ethz.ch
Mon Apr 27 01:11:09 EST 1998

In article <l03130303b169a5552786@[]>,
adobrovi at medicine.adelaide.edu.au (alex dobrovic) wrote:

> We need a new transilluminator. I am attracted by the notion of using a 310
> nM to reduce damage to DNA and skin of users but are these much less
> sensitive in detecting very weak bands? I suspect that this might be the
> case?

See BioTechniques 11:747-748 (1991) for an article on loss of
transformation efficiency when plasmids in agarose gels are treated with
UV light. With 302 nm and an 8-kb plasmid, you can be below 1% of starting
transformation efficiency within 1 minute! Only 366 nm UV was save for
periods of many minutes (times involved in cutting bands out of gels to
ligate them into new plasmids). We have two UV boxes--one at 302 nm for
analytical gels, one at 366 nm for preparative gels. If I had only one, I
would choose the 366 nm box. The sensitivity is somewhat less than with
302 nm, but not that much. I don't think there is any justification for
254 nm. Note that you can get a bad sunburn even with the 302 nm box.

Ned Mantei
Dept. of Neurobiology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
to reach me more quickly, replace my first name by my last name in my e-mail address.

More information about the Methods mailing list