FPLC - Superdex 200HR vs. Superose 12HR columns

Lloyd Graham lloyd.graham at REMOVE-MEmolsci.csiro.au
Fri Dec 4 21:18:01 EST 1998

In article <noone-0412980931200001 at med180.bham.ac.uk>,
noone at cancer.bham.ac.uk (noone) wrote:

> > >Can anyone comment on relative advantages (for protein size estimation and
> > >purification) of Pharmacia's new(ish) Superdex-200HR 10/30 column, as
> > >compared to their long-standing Superose-12HR 10/30 column? They both have
> > >similar nominal separation ranges (which are suitable to our needs) and
> > >both appear to have comparable theoretical plates & and flowrates despite
> > >having different matrix compositions. Feedback gratefully received.
> > >
> > 
> > They are indeed very similar. In my experience limited to only several
> > runs on both, Superdex has a bit wider separation range and yields of
> > activities were higher. 
> > 
> >         - Dima
> I also believe that the Superdex 200 has a wider separation range. I used
> it successfully for a few high molecular weight proteins of approx. 300
> kDa. IMHO Superose 12 is still the best choice though when it comes to
> proteins up to, say, 50-80 kDa.
> Peter

Dima, Peter -

When you say the Superdex has a wider separation range, this suggests to
me that a 40 kDa protein and its 80 kDa dimer will be closer together
(less well resolved) on the Superdex column. Is this actually what you

Many thanks for the replies,


Delete REMOVE-ME from email address to reply

More information about the Methods mailing list