Using Shampoo for Blots?

Dima Klenchin klenchin at REMOVE_TO_REPLY.facstaff.wisc.edu
Sun Nov 29 12:15:59 EST 1998


In article <svetlov-ya02408000R2711981009410001 at news.doit.wisc.edu>, 
svetlov at oncology.wisc.edu (Vladimir Svetlov) wrote:
>In article <73kvij$no2$1 at news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>klenchin at REMOVE_TO_REPLY.facstaff.wisc.edu (Dima Klenchin) wrote:
>
>
>> >Myself I'm writing a
>> >comprehensive review regarding the use of precast Novex, Owl and BioRad
>> >PAGE gels months after the expiration date - this is gonna be huge!
>> 
>> They are nearly unusable to begin with, so I admire your genius well in 
>> advance!
>
>Well, their usability depends on how you define "use". Since I've joined R.
>Burgess' church of protein refolding all of my communications - in JBC and
>CSHL 63th - re Pol II stoichiometry and assembly determinants feature
>exclusively Novex gels. I can't be sure but this month's Terry's paper in
>selfsame JBC re mapping of the major sigma binding "domain" on beta prime
>also was done using Novex gels. So as far as our modest needs go they are
>quite usable. 

Well, sure, I mean, of course, why not, obviously? If you are willing to spend
a lot of money to get results that are inferior to cheaper freshly prepared
gels, then I see no reason not to use precast gels. Frees some time for 
Usenet reading too :-))

The simple fact that other things being equal, fresh gels with real 
stacker _always_ resolve better. We go through a lot of gels for many
trivial and pathetic reasons, and couldn't afford precast anyway. 
Myself, I prefer to pour my own also because I like being able to vary
%, width, number of wells, etc depending on exact application.

        - Dima










More information about the Methods mailing list