using cheap digital camera to photograph gels

WSchick at aol.com WSchick at aol.com
Wed Feb 2 23:12:52 EST 2000


Try www.alphainnotech.com

They have standard 300/365 in some of their imagers as the 365 is good for 
GFP and coarbohydrate gels.  No other gel doc company offers this flexible 
light choices.

You can even get Chromalight converters for GFP mutants.  The can substitue a 
three wavelength illuminator--254, 302, 365 but there is little need for 254 
with EtBr gels.  In fact that is why the 302 wavelength was invented at 
UCLA--DNA nicke too much under short wavelength.

The only use I think 254 is for illuminating organics, like on a TLC plate.

Anyway, you should check their website and get a local dealer to demo for you.

Walt Schick

I sed to sell these in San Francisco, so I'm biased.  But definately try and 
make up your own mind--like testing a car, you have to feel it and drive it 
before you see if it likes you.


<< From:    oswaldo at iats.csic.es (Oswaldo)
 Sender:    owner-methods at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
 To:    methods at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
 
 BTW, we are choosing a gel documentation system which we will purchase
 soon for our lab. There is some controversy now between the future users
 because most standard complete systems come with 312 nm UV light tables
 and there are some users who insist that 254nm UV is much better for
 ethidium bromide gels. For them, 254nm gives better sensitivity than the
 standard 312nm. Because the system will be used to document gels but not
 to cut $ recover bands, photodamage to DNA is not a consideration here.
 There is another UV light table dedicated to cutting and playing around
 with those gels.
 
 Is there really an advantage on using 254 nm for EtBr
 gel-documentation?. Should we get a double intensity table (254/312 nm)
 as a compromise?. Any comment on this matter will be welcome.
  >>
---




More information about the Methods mailing list