RNA preps - looking for suggestions

Bernard Murray bpmurray*STUFFER* at socrates.ucsf.edu
Mon Jun 8 23:45:54 EST 1998

In article <357C8CAB.292C at science.uottawa.ca>, mbeyers at science.uottawa.ca wrote:

> Theo Thijs wrote:
> > 
> > If you don't care about the RNA yield why don't you try TriZol buffer?
> > 
> Well, actually, I do care about the yield and I've tried Trizol and such
> in the past.  Recalling that a perfect RNA sample should have an
> A260/A280 ratio of about 2.0, I've done no better than achieve 1.4 with
> Trizol.  However, the prep I'm using ALWAYS gives me 2.0 +/- 0.02.
> So my conclusion is that, to save two extra pipetting steps, people are
> paying huge amounts of money for the convenience of Trizol.

I don't think home-made Trizol is that expensive (you're just paying
for the guanidinium and phenol mainly).  I agree that the ratios can
be suspiciously low at times but the RNA looks good on a gel and
probed bands are generally nice and sharp and this is what counts.
     I also agree that one method does not necessarily fit all (although
Trizol comes close) so by all means stick to what works.
     For high speed spins (eg. up to 20 k rpm) in Sorvall or Beckman rotors
I use plastic (polythene?) tubes from Sarstedt and these are nuclease
free and phenol resistant.
Bernard Murray, PhD
Dept. Cell. Mol. Pharmacol., UCSF, San Francisco, USA

More information about the Methods mailing list