RNA preps - looking for suggestions
brett at BORCIM.WUSTL.EDU
Mon Jun 8 17:42:36 EST 1998
I disagree that Trizol gives low yields and/or low quality. I actually
did the comparison to the standard guanidinium prep as well as to a SDS/
ProtK prep. I couldn't find a difference, although I must admit that I
don't follow BRL's Trizol protocol which does favor a trade off of
quantity or quality, as is.
>> 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. Personally,
>I think it's a shame to waste valuable research money in this way.
>However, that's another matter. My only problem is that my tubes
>shatter. Several people have suggested I go to Nalgene Oakridge tubes
>and I think I'll give this a whirl.
brett at borcim.wustl.edu
Dept of Molecular Microbiology
Washington University School of Medicine
More information about the Methods