genotyping and Li-Cor

Dr Randal W. Giroux rgiroux at
Thu Nov 5 11:20:54 EST 1998

We have been using Licor for genotyping for the last 6 months and are very
happy with its performance. I do not agree that internal lane standards
provide better accuarcy in base calling if the correct controls and lane
standards are employed. In addition, the Licor has advantages which are not
redily apparent. The high power lazer requires heat venting (a dryer sized
pipe which needs to be vented externally), the plates are $1200 a pair
compared to a couple of hundred bucks for the LiCor plates, the argon laser
will burn out in about 5000 hours (at best 2 years) whith a heafty
replacment cost vs. the 80,000 hour infrared lazer in the LICor. As such, in
terms of operating costs the LiCor system is much cheaper to run and
    While the analysis software is good, the database software is a bit
lite. LiCor however has committed lots of resources to software development
and promise their users support in these areas.
    As you can see I'm one satisfied customer.

Dr Randal W. Giroux
Canadian Grain Commission

Hongmei Liang wrote in message <363F4929.F4C63627 at>...
>Dear colleagues,
>I am researching the purchase of a sequencer and have decided that
>either the ABI 377 or
>Li-Cor system will be needed.  I am wondering if anyone with experience
>using the LiCor
>system for fragment analysis (genotyping in particular) has had any
>problems with the
>system.  The ABI system with the markers within the lane should yield a
>more accurate
>fragment sizing but I was wondering if there are any real problems with
>the LiCor system.
> I have no doubt that the LiCor system is great for price, quality, and
>read length in
>sequencing as well as for mapping kit prices but would like to have
>somone with
>experience give me an idea of how accurate the size calling is.
>Thanks for your help,
>Michael C. Gorry
>University of Pittsburgh
>Arthritis Institute
>Pittsburgh, PA 15261
>gorry2+ at

More information about the Methods mailing list