Real Time PCR

January Weiner nospam_jweiner1 at ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Mon Jul 17 05:52:54 EST 2000


[ PM ]
> The 5700 applications are a lot reduced compared to the 7700 and the LC.

For example? Like the multi-channel thing for the LC noone uses, because it
doesn't give any reproducible data? I would like to see one entry in the
literature where people actually used it. To me it seems to be something
like some keychain-gadgets which are supposed to work but which are
seldomly or never used. Anything else you can't do with 5700? Because I can
name at least one important thing you can't do with 7700 which you can do
with 5700. Not to mention that I can use 50 or 100ul vol. PCRs and a larger
spectrum of chemicals (as opposed to LC).

> Is there anyone who can tell why did he choose a 5700 over a LC?

If you are doing only SYBR green quantification, which is rational if you
work on a lot of genes, for example, and also in many other cases, then LC
gives you no "gadget advantages". On the other hand, 5700 is definitely
much more robust and has the PE know-how behind it. I am much more happy
with their technical knowledge and experience with that of Roche, which is
not exactly well known for it's PCR technologies and machines. Having tried
extensively both, with a prejudgement on LC's favour, I got convinced to
the 5700. I admit that I got fooled by the Hi-Tech look and extensive
marketing of the LC at first.

> In another way, is there any 5700 happy user?

With the exception to the controlling software, which royally sucks, I'm
very happy with it, though I admit that I haven't been using it for a very
long time. We'll see in a couple of months.

Cheers.

j.

-- 
----)-\//-///-----------------------------------January-Weiner-3-------
Ja daje napiwki, bo uwazam to za moralny obowiazek socjalisty w knajpie. [WO]






More information about the Methods mailing list